The Secretary of State was asked—

David Jones: The owners of the site at Caernarfon that the Ministry rejected were willing to sell it, fully remediated and with a commercially acceptable warranty, for a sum of £10 million. Given that the Ministry studiously refused to enter into any negotiations for the site and did not, so far as I can see, ever conduct any soil tests, how is the Minister able to say with such certainty—she has done so on several occasions—that it did not represent value for taxpayers' money?

Rosie Cooper: Will my hon. Friend the Minister please confirm the Secretary of State's response to me, as reported in the  Hansard? He said:
	"There will not be a prison in Scarisbrick"
	in my constituency.—[ Official Report, 21 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 747.]

Maria Eagle: rose—

Shailesh Vara: I am grateful to the Minister for those comments. Given that it is widely reported that the decision to set up a Supreme Court was taken by Tony Blair and Lord Falconer over a glass of whisky, and that the annual cost of running the Supreme Court is some £14 million whereas the cost of the previous arrangement was £3 million a year, does the Minister agree that it has proved to be a very expensive glass of whisky?

Michael Wills: No, I do not agree, and I counsel the hon. Gentleman—and I suspect his colleagues who will follow on shortly—that they must be very careful to ensure that they compare like with like. If I may, I will give the hon. Gentleman a few figures. The figures he quotes are roughly right, but they do not include all the costs incurred in the running of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, as they were not included when we looked at the costs of the Supreme Court. Let me just give an example. The costings he has quoted go back to 2002-03, I think. Inflation since then and the costs that cannot be separated out precisely from the running of Parliament, such as those for rent, security, IT, catering, library services, cleaning and non-cash items, amount to about £7 million. So when the hon. Gentleman looks at these figures and genuinely tries to arrive at a like-for-like comparison, he will find there is no significant difference. If I may, I will give him some comparative costs for elsewhere in the world.  [Interruption.] Well, I will do so, because he is worried about cost efficiency. The costs of running the Supreme Courts in Canada and the United States are £23 million and £53 million respectively.

James Duddridge: I am hesitating because I am not sure that I understood what you just said, Mr. Speaker.
	When the Minister meets the chief executive to discuss the running costs, will he consider whether it is good for democracy that an individual has to spend £350 just to see the documents at the Supreme Court?

Michael Wills: Of course I accept your strictures, Mr. Speaker, and I will try very hard not to be led astray by any hon. Member. In return, I ask the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) not to be led astray by inaccurate press reports. If he would like to take the trouble to ascertain the actual facts, he would be less worried than he appears to be. The actual facts are that there is no change in the current proceedings: there have always been charges for making these documents available in this way. The release of the court record is a formal procedural process; it is not a simple matter of just releasing the documents—it requires vetting and ensuring that no sensitive details are released. That has always been the case, there has always been a charge for it and that will continue to be the case.
	I stress that this is not a case that relates to documents that might be accessed by a freedom of information request—it is nothing to do with that. The documents referred to in the newspaper report—the source of the hon. Gentleman's question—are not documents about the running of the Supreme Court. They are formal court records that relate to individual cases before the court.

David Taylor: In the six years since its announcement, the projected cost of the Supreme Court has risen from £32 million to £56 million. Included in that are the costs of very lavish carpets designed by Sir Peter Blake, who also designed the Sgt. Pepper's album cover. Could the Minister say whether the then Prime Minister's project, which was gained with a little help from his friends, still represents excellent value?

Michael Wills: Everyone can have a view about how effectively the money has been spent—we will all have our views on that. Everyone who has seen the building realises that it represents a masterpiece of renovation and is a precious asset to the architectural environment of these particular Houses of Parliament. Its costs, amortised over 30 years, are about £2 million to £3 million a year. My hon. Friend will realise that that is value for money in terms of rent for any other comparable building. What is fundamental to this is the purpose of setting up the Supreme Court, which is to do with the separation of powers. That is a precious constitutional principle and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not welcome it more fully.

Henry Bellingham: Does it not concern the Minister a little that a court that sat in a Committee Room upstairs, shared the Palace's facilities at minimal cost and employed six people now employs a staff of 40, including a chief executive on more than £100,000? Will he examine its running costs of £14 million? In particular, will he consider replacing the chief executive with a manager on half that salary? Surely that would be a better way to save money than removing legal aid from vulnerable constituents and closing magistrates courts.

Michael Wills: I will respect your strictures not to venture down those paths along which the hon. Gentleman has just tempted me, Mr. Speaker. I say to him again—we had an exchange about this last week on the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill—that he needs to compare the figures like for like. He still is not doing so. I refer him to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) a few moments ago, and I ask them both to compare like for like. We will constantly review this: as I said in my earlier answer, there will be regular meetings—on at least an annual basis—to review the running costs. Of course all public institutions must run in a cost-effective way, and the function of the chief executive is precisely to ensure that this precious new institution that we have established functions in an effective and efficient way. That is what the chief executive is for.

Andrew Robathan: In my naivety, I had imagined that prisons were disciplined and ordered places where prison staff and prison officers were able to enforce their authority and prevent drugs from getting in. I am interested in what the Justice Secretary has to say, but what penalties is he instituting for those who smuggle drugs into prison—be they visitors, people outside prison throwing drugs over the walls or staff themselves?

Jack Straw: There are substantial penalties. One measure that I introduced at the beginning of 1999, when I was Home Secretary, significantly tightened up the checking and vetting of visitors to prisons, who are one of the major sources of the drugs that are smuggled in, and the penalties for such visitors if they transgressed the rules, as well as imposing clear penalties on prisoners who receive drugs or who conspire with visitors in that respect. This is a challenge—there is no question about it—not least because prisoners seek to conceal both drugs and mobile telephones in an obscene way in their body orifices. Detecting the smuggling of drugs and mobile telephones into prison is difficult, and so we have tightened controls and introduced these body orifice scanners.

Jack Straw: I established a review under Mr. David Blakey, the former chief inspector of constabulary and former chief constable of West Mercia, which was published at the beginning of last year. I commend that review to the hon. Gentleman. As long as there are some drugs in prison that should not be there, none of us should be satisfied about the environment in prison. This is not an issue that I, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), the managers of the Prison Service or the staff take remotely lightly. It is very serious. The performance of prisons varies, including between similar categories of prison, and we are constantly searching for ways to improve performance, including searches of both staff and visitors—

Jack Straw: Generalisation like that belies the fact that it is very difficult to get drugs into prison and that staff do a huge amount of work to ensure that drugs are not there. It is not possible to answer the point that my hon. Friend puts to me, which is essentially a negative, but what I can say is that, as I have told the House, the results of mandatory drug tests show that there has been a 68 per cent. decrease of the use of drugs in prison, which is something for which we should thank the National Offender Management Service.

Lindsay Hoyle: First, the problem is that people who are bringing in the drugs are visitors and that we are not effective in punishing those who are carrying the drugs. In fact, if they refuse the search we let them go rather than dealing with the importation of drugs into prisons. Secondly—this point is very important for my right hon. Friend—the reduction in prison officer numbers and the increase in prisoner numbers make it even harder to try to control prisons, such as Garth and Wymott prisons in my constituency.

Jack Straw: I cannot rule that out as a possibility, but the truth is that the overwhelming number of people who seek drugs and abuse them in prison are addicted to drugs outside prison. An alarming proportion of offenders—apart from, interestingly, sex offenders and the high-end offenders who are drug dealers rather than drug users—are people who abuse drugs. One of the many reasons why we make every effort to control the availability of drugs in prison and to increase the sanctions on their use is so that there can be drug-free environments. However, when I talk to prisoners, time and again they tell me that they have got clean in prison. They say that they have benefited from the medical treatment and the fact that drugs are not available there. They have got clean in prison but their worry, which should be a worry for us all, is about the transition between prison and the community. That is why we are putting a great deal of effort into that transitional process.

Tony Lloyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that, even when things go well, the time between assault and trial can be one of great anxiety for the victim? It could also be one of great danger if there are threats of further violence. In that context, what can she do to impress on everyone—the prosecution services, the police, the courts and defence lawyers—that any delays are intolerable when violence is part of the case?

David Howarth: One problem is that a lot of what the authorities treat as antisocial behaviour is in reality crime—such as assault, criminal damage and public order offences. Should those offences not be treated as crime, rather than dealt with under a civil procedure?

Dominic Grieve: The Minister will agree that one driver of antisocial behaviour is alcohol and, in some cases, hard drugs. However, the average fine for possessing crack cocaine has dropped from £300 to £38 in just three years. Does the Minister accept that that sends out the most extraordinary mixed messages about the importance that the Government attach to the use of hard drugs and misbehaviour resulting from it?

Bridget Prentice: Helping those in financial difficulties is an important part of our purpose. Of course, that has to be balanced against creditors' right to recover their debts. In September this year, we published the consultation paper "Debt Management Schemes—delivering effective and balanced solutions for debtors and creditors", which seeks views on whether there is a need to intervene further in this sector and, if so, what action should be taken.

Bridget Prentice: Defendants who are acquitted in criminal trials should normally receive their reasonable costs from central funds unless the court decides that it is not appropriate to award those costs. Overall, central funds expenditure was £62 million in 2007-08 and £77 million in 2008-09. On current indications, I have no reason to believe that it will not increase during 2009-10.

Eleanor Laing: Perhaps the Minister is not aware of a statutory instrument that is coming before the House this afternoon. I understand that the Government are proposing a change in this area of the law to bring in what would effectively be a stealth tax on innocence. Does she appreciate that after the Government's proposals become law, someone who has been accused of a crime, has met their own costs in defending themselves, and is then declared innocent will be required to pay their own costs? If she is now going to confirm that that the information that I have about this is mistaken, we would be delighted.

Jack Straw: As the hon. Gentleman and all of us do, I share the grief of the family.
	If the conviction was for murder, the sentence will have been for life. A minimum tariff will have been set, although I do not know what it was. Home detention curfew and early release from custody under the 18-day provision do not apply to any such serious offenders. Even once they have served their tariff—I would be very surprised if it were not in double figures—they will be released only once they have satisfied the Parole Board that it is safe. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the victim's bereaved family will have a right to appear before the Parole Board.

Jack Straw: Yes—it is because of resources. We have had to use a very large amount of resources to expand the prison estate, among other things. We have done so dramatically, and it is now up to 84,300-odd places and will get to at least 96,000 in five years' time. We have also spent money on probation, for which resources have increased as the number of offenders coming through the system has. I regret that we have not been able to do everything, but we have done a huge amount. The fact that we have greatly strengthened the correctional system is one of many reasons why this Administration are the first to see crime go down, not up.

Maria Eagle: The level of juvenile reoffending is at its lowest since 2000, with the rate having come down by more than a fifth between 2000 and 2007. The £100 million youth crime action plan is on track to cut youth offending further through a combination of tough enforcement against offenders, non-negotiable support to families of offenders and early intervention and prevention for young people at risk of offending.

Maria Eagle: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Although we have made much progress—increasing the amount of spend on adult education by more than 15 times since the Government came to office—more can be done, and we intend to ensure that we do it.

Jack Straw: Compensation is a matter for the courts. There is no—and never has been—statutory responsibility directly on the Government in respect of victims. Very occasionally victims in such circumstances can get compensation, but I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Gentleman, as successive Governments have said, that it is a matter for the courts, and clearly within rather narrowly defined circumstances.

Chloe Smith: I listened to the Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), prior to her complimentary remarks, for which I thank her very much. But surely the Criminal Cases (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2009, do indeed prevent an acquitted defendant from recovering their costs?

Bridget Prentice: Of course they are not legally aided—that is the point—but the level of costs that they will get back from the taxpayer from central funds will be the same as if they had been legally aided. That is fair both to them and to legally aided defendants.

Mark Pritchard: In order to protect freedom of speech and safeguard community cohesion, will the Justice Secretary put in place measures that prevent Muslim groups and organisations who condone or encourage violence against Muslims who convert to other religions or leave the Islamic faith—so-called apostates—from receiving public money?

Jack Straw: The community payback and community cash-back schemes have, I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend, been very successful. Using the minimum wage as the multiplier, I can tell him that in the west midlands, about £2.5 million-worth of unpaid labour has been carried out, involving many schemes. One of the great things about community payback is that the public can literally see offenders carrying out this work on their behalf, and increasingly they can choose which schemes the offenders should undertake.

Anne McIntosh: Now that we know that shop theft costs a shocking £5 billion a year and is on the increase, especially among middle class women, will the Justice Secretary please extend the review of out of court disposals, which he has just instigated at the request of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Association of Chief Police Officers, to include the use of penalty notices, which should not be used in cases of persistent shop theft?

Jack Straw: The review will indeed include penalty notices for disorder. As I have made clear to the hon. Lady—and I commend her campaign on proper compliance and a restriction on the use of PNDs, especially in respect of shop theft—I am as concerned as she is about any circumstances in which penalty notices for disorder are used for repeat offenders. The number of convictions over the last eight years has increased. The introduction of so-called out of court disposals is nothing to do with the prison population. Before we introduced the out of court disposals, most of these offenders were not dealt with at all by the police, and that was wholly ineffective. I accept that there is a problem, and we must consider it actively.

Jack Straw: I am as surprised and shocked as anybody else by the fact that cautions have been used in indictable-only offences such as rape. Such decisions can be made only by the crown prosecutor—it is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. The review will indeed include that issue. These cautions and other out of court disposals were designed for lower level offences that, in the past, were not the subject of any effective police action. In the period in which we have introduced them, the number of convictions has increased significantly.

Greg Mulholland: A constituent's son was tragically murdered. The mother applied for compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, but was refused—including help with funeral expenses—because he had had convictions in the past that were nothing to do with his murder. Does the Secretary of State agree that it appears that we place a lower value on life when it comes to those who have made a mistake in the past and paid for those crimes?

Jack Straw: The appointment of my hon. Friend is very good news. In any event, we are already pursuing the recommendations of the Youth Citizenship Commission. As for votes at 16, opinions differ. This is a free country, and there are free opinions in the Government on this issue. I take a slightly different view on this, and it was striking that in the opinion poll that the YCC conducted only those aged 16 and 17 showed a majority in favour of votes at 16—and it was only a narrow majority—and the other groups favoured 18. This is a debate that will run and run.

Jack Straw: I have, indeed, just said that. I point out to the hon. Lady, however, that violence against the person as a category includes, at the one end, grievous bodily harm, which is very serious, and, at the other end, common assault, which until 1998 was regarded by the party of the previous Administration as not important enough to be a recorded offence. In my view, we need graded advice that clearly distinguishes on the one hand between common assault—it might literally be just a tap—and grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm on the other hand.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know how hard she has sought to represent the bereaved Kinsella family and the community. As I explained to the House in my statement, schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides for a minimum starting-point tariff of 15 years for adults. In the light of the Kinsella murder and the sentences, understandable concern was raised about the fact that the starting point was too low for knife murders involving people who have gone out with a knife with the intention of committing a serious crime. I am glad to say that, in the light of the review, I propose to raise the tariff to 25 years. I am afraid that nothing can undo the loss suffered by the Kinsella family, but it does at least show—I hope—respect for them and the community that it has been possible to respond as we have.

Jack Straw: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, because I cannot answer his question directly without notice. However, I will follow it up, including with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. There are normally arrangements with almost all countries for prisoner transfer. Under long-standing arrangements that pre-date this Government, those arrangements require the consent of the sentencing state, receiving state and, usually, the prisoner—although we are trying to change that. However, I shall write to him with advice on that.

Rosie Cooper: Will the Secretary of State please reaffirm what he said in his answer to me on 21 July, which is that there will be no prison—neither a Titan prison nor any other size of prison—in Scarisbrick? Will he also confirm that in writing for the benefit of Tory councillors—colleagues of Opposition Members—who seem not to be able to believe in the record according to  Hansard?

Christopher Fraser: The Ministry of Justice is spending £4 million installing vending machines in prisons to allow prisoners access to methadone, through the iris or fingerprint system. Why are the Government spending more on prisoners' drug habits than on abstinence-based rehabilitation?

Jack Straw: May I say to the hon. Gentleman— [ Interruption. ] Sorry, but he is obscured by the corporeal presence of his hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), just in front of him. I invite the hon. Gentleman to come to prison and see those dispensers, which are part of ensuring the tight control of drugs in prison. There are some addicted prisoners for whom medical practitioners have determined that methadone—not heroin but methadone, which is a recognised and acceptable substitute—should be prescribed, in order to control and cut down their addiction. The idea of the dispensing machines is to provide absolute certainty about who receives the methadone. As I have witnessed, the prisoner's identity is checked at the point at which the drug is dispensed and he or she has to consume it in the presence of two prison officers and a nurse.

Jack Straw: rose—

Dominic Grieve: rose—

Jack Straw: rose—

Nicholas Winterton: rose—

Andrew Rosindell: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a national public holiday marking the Queen's diamond jubilee in 2012 and to establish a framework to ensure that the United Kingdom, its overseas territories and Crown dependencies appropriately commemorate this occasion; and for connected purposes.
	On 6 February 1952, following the passing of His Majesty King George VI, Princess Elizabeth became Queen Elizabeth II. That was nearly 58 years ago, so today, our nation can begin to look ahead to 2012—the year in which, God willing, we will be able to celebrate Her Majesty's 60th year as Queen and the diamond jubilee of her reign. Of course, 2012 is already the year in which the eyes of every nation and billions of people across the globe will be watching Britain, as we stage the Olympic games here in London. It will undoubtedly be a year in which to celebrate great sporting achievements, but we in these islands will have an ever greater achievement to celebrate as another page in the history of our nation is reached. The 60th anniversary of Queen Elizabeth II's accession to the throne will be a momentous occasion, making Her Majesty the second longest reigning monarch, not only since the Union of the Crowns in 1603, but ever to reign over any part of the British isles.
	Over the past decades, Her Majesty has witnessed many historic changes throughout her realms and across the world. Under her watchful eye, we have witnessed the evolution of the British empire into the Commonwealth of nations; the cold war, the collapse of communism and the fall of the Berlin wall; the liberation of the Falkland Islands and the handing over of Hong Kong to China. Her Majesty has reigned during times of enormous social and economic change in Britain, with 12 Prime Ministers holding office and 14 general elections—with another one expected—taking place during her long, eventful and distinguished reign. Throughout all those years, the one reassuring constant has been the sovereign herself. Queen Elizabeth II has been a firm hand on the tiller of our nation; Her Majesty has been a shining beacon to nations around the world as to how a modern constitutional monarchy should conduct itself. No other monarch could have propelled this country to such great success, and the Queen is rightly beloved by all her people.
	The Queen's diamond jubilee should be an opportunity for everyone to celebrate this great milestone in the history of our island people, whether they reside in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales, our Crown dependencies, overseas territories or expatriate communities scattered across the globe. Indeed, Her Majesty is not only our sovereign, but also reigns over many millions of people throughout her realms—of Antigua and Barbuda; Australia; the Bahamas; Barbados; Belize; Canada; Grenada; Jamaica; New Zealand; Papua New Guinea; Saint Kitts and Nevis; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. The people of those nations, too, should be given the opportunity to celebrate this glorious and historic occasion, for it is as much their celebration as it is ours.
	I ask hon. Members to cast their minds back to the last occasion we had cause to celebrate our royal heritage, when the Queen celebrated her golden jubilee in 2002. In the run-up to the celebrations, we were told that it would be a low-key affair, with the public neither interested nor wanting a large celebration. How wrong they were! The events of that summer surpassed everyone's expectations. That spirit of pageantry that was so evocative of the silver jubilee of 25 years earlier was wonderfully recaptured with more than 1 million people lining the Mall to cheer Her Majesty.
	During the weekend of 1 to 4 June 2002, the Queen hosted a concert in the gardens of Buckingham palace—the largest event ever organised on the premises, with the BBC symphony orchestra and chorus leading a stirring musical performance. The royal family attended services of thanksgiving across the country and church bells rang out across the land to mark the national celebrations. Street parties took place in roads up and down the land, mirroring and surpassing the scale of those of the silver jubilee in 1977. A further concert was held at Buckingham palace featuring pop music over the previous 50 years. The Queen lit the national beacon at the Victoria memorial, which was the last in a string of beacons to be lit throughout the world, echoing Queen Victoria's own golden jubilee in 1887.
	The double bank holiday weekend culminated with the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh riding in the golden state coach, accompanied by the entire royal family attending a national service of thanksgiving at St. Paul's cathedral, together with a magnificent military procession and a jubilee festival featuring singers and musicians performing alongside the numerous decorated floats processing along the Mall, illustrating British life throughout the years of her reign.
	At the end of the festival, 5,000 adults and children from the Commonwealth nations marched along the Mall in national dress and presented a "rainbow of wishes" to Her Majesty, after which the Queen and Prince Philip greeted crowds from the palace balcony, before the magnificent spectacle of a fly-past by the Royal Air Force, the Red Arrows and Concorde. The events of that glorious weekend served to highlight the huge amount of support and affection that the Queen commands throughout the nation.
	The great success of the golden jubilee means that we must strive to make the diamond jubilee an even greater celebration; and so, in 2012, let there be pomp and pageantry, together with grass-roots initiatives throughout the length and breadth of these islands. Let there be opportunities for people to celebrate in the ways that they think most appropriate to their families and communities, whether it be through street parties, voluntary groups, churches, schools, local authorities or businesses, or just gatherings of friends and loved ones in private homes. There must also be a dedicated weekend put aside for these events, with dedicated bank holidays, so that everyone can take part and enjoy the festivities.
	This, Mr. Speaker, could be crowned by a huge international parade in which all Her Majesty's realms and territories would be invited to demonstrate their pride through the streets of London. The parade should begin with a military procession encompassing every regiment and uniformed service, from the Coldstream Guards, the Royal Highland Fusiliers, the Welsh Guards and the Royal Irish Regiment to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment, the Royal Australian Regiment and the Royal Gibraltar Regiment, and many more besides. All would have their part to play in this great and historic celebration of the Queen's 60-year reign.
	The parade should be followed by a carnival of people, animals, marching bands, vehicles and floats, featuring men and women of all ages, religions and races from each of our historic counties and great cities, to reflect the rich and diverse nature of the Kingdom, together with each and every one of Her Majesty's realms and dependencies from Jersey to Jamaica, Bermuda to Belize, the Cook Islands to the Cayman Islands, St. Helena to St. Lucia, Alderney to Akrotiri and the Isle of Man to Norfolk Island. Let all the peoples who remain loyal to the Crown join these historic celebrations!
	My aim today in bringing this Bill to Parliament is to draw attention to a highly significant event. Although 2012 is still over two years away, I believe that if the diamond jubilee is to pass off spectacularly, we need to begin fostering ideas and support today. It is only right and proper that, in the year of the 60th anniversary of Her Majesty's reign, we should celebrate that, and demonstrate our heartfelt thanks and steadfast loyalty.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Andrew Rosindell, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Daniel Kawczynski, Mr. Angus MacNeil, Mr. Owen Paterson, Mrs. Iris Robinson, Bob Russell, Chloe Smith, Geraldine Smith, Dr. Richard Taylor and Angela Watkinson present the Bill.
	Andrew Rosindell accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed (Bill 164).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Welfare Reform Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 27 January 2009 (Welfare Reform Bill (Programme)):
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments 
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	2. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely Lords Amendment No. 2, remaining Lords Amendments.
	 Subsequent stages 
	3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.— (Helen Jones.)
	 Question agreed to.

Jim Knight: I thank my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), from whom I have inherited the Bill, my noble Friend Lord McKenzie of Luton, for his excellent stewardship of the Bill through the other place, and Members of both Houses for their scrutiny of the Bill, as I now seek to guide its journey to a safe conclusion this week.
	In disagreeing with the Lords amendment, I shall also speak to our amendment (a) in lieu and the other Lords amendments in this group with which we agree. It will help the House if I give some brief background. The House will be aware that our policies for lone parents are based on the idea of family-friendly working. We rely on two key principles—that work is the best route out of poverty, and that parents, especially lone parents, must be allowed to fulfil their responsibilities to their children.
	On the former point, we are mindful that the longer people are out of work, the more difficult it is to get a job. It is therefore vital that support be provided early, to help address the barriers to work. That is what we mean by work-related activity. We do not mean work; lone parents will not be required to take up employment until their youngest child is seven. We mean training, CV writing, help with literacy and numeracy and financial advice—overcoming a range of obstacles that often hold people back from helping themselves. Indeed, we mean the range of support offered so successfully in the new deal for lone parents, which has got 625,000 lone parents into work in the last 11 years. But it is equally important that this support must be convenient. It must come second to the welfare of the child, and depend on locally available affordable childcare. It must also allow time to drop off and pick up children from school and nursery.
	Foremost in the amendments is the requirement that the well-being of a customer's child is always taken into account when a personal adviser and a parent agree the steps that they will take to prepare for, or move into, work when completing an action plan or, for lone parents with older children, a jobseeker's agreement. Here we apply a definition of well-being found elsewhere in legislation that takes into account a child's physical and mental health and emotional well-being; protection from harm and neglect; education, training and recreation; the contribution made by them to society; and their social and economic well-being. These are covered in amendments 8, 27 and 54.
	There has been much debate on good cause, and what is considered to be good cause for failing to undertake a work-related activity. As a result we have taken the opportunity to outline in primary legislation some of the most important things that should always be considered when deciding on good cause for failing to undertake work-related activity. Claimants of income replacement benefits will not be directed to undertake medical or surgical treatment to meet their work-related activity requirements. However, the amendments permit such customers to undertake such activity on a voluntary basis with informed consent. We feel that that is important, especially where an individual has a health condition that is in itself a barrier to returning to work. As a result, we believe that they should receive, on a voluntary basis, the appropriate help and support to make a return to work possible, such as counselling or physiotherapy if that is something they and their adviser agree on.
	To ensure that customers are not penalised if they change their minds about the decision, we would allow them to fulfil their requirement to undertake work-related activity by completing another activity on their action plan. This change is covered by Lords amendments 9, 15 and 58.
	Also, after listening to the views of both Houses, we have decided to introduce amendments to make it clear that good cause considerations must take into account the availability of childcare. In practice this already happens, but we want to put that principle beyond doubt and ensure that it is protected for the future. This is covered by Lords amendments 10, 26 and 78.

Lynne Jones: I recently wrote to my right hon. Friend about a constituent of mine who is a lone parent with five children, three of whom have conditions including autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Asperger's and Tourette's. She is a carer—and indeed, she has a carer for herself, who is one of her children. As a carer, she is not required to attend work preparation, but she is required to attend six-monthly work-focused interviews. I have inquired of the Jobcentre Plus, and an action plan has never been produced for her because it is clear that while she has responsibility for the children, she will never be able to work. The six-monthly visits to her Jobcentre Plus are, however, extremely onerous for her. I have asked whether some flexibility might be given to the jobcentre so that it could have the discretion to waive that requirement.

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I have set out a range of positive measures that we are putting in the Bill. He talks in terms of "sticks" and "carrots". As he knows, it is normal in social security legislation to put the sticks in primary legislation and leave the carrots in secondary legislation and in other action. What is unusual is that we are putting the carrots—to use his language—in primary legislation, in the Bill.
	Let us consider the substance of what the hon. Gentleman is asking about, and our disagreement with the Lords, which I was about to discuss. I believe, as I did when I took the legislation to raise the education participation age through Parliament, that there are circumstances in which one wants to make it more uncomfortable for people to do the wrong thing and more comfortable for them to do the right thing. As I shall go on to say, I think that in the case of some parents, it is in the interests of those individuals, of their children—in terms of tackling child poverty—and of the country as a whole, if they are actively encouraged to receive the help and support that will come about as a result of the conditionality that we want to introduce.

Jim Knight: In many ways, that misses the point. We are talking about work-related activity, not work. There is no requirement for parents whose youngest children are under the age of seven to take up employment. We are talking about work-related activities and receiving support such as that which lone parents receive in the new deal for lone parents. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's party's position is on that, although I know that the official Opposition want to get rid of it.
	Lords amendment 2 amends the Bill so that financial sanctions could not be imposed upon a "single" parent in receipt of income support with a child under five if they failed to undertake work-related activity. The amendment would not achieve the purpose that I believe it was intended to achieve. "Single" is not defined in social security legislation, so there is a risk that it could be interpreted to mean a non-resident parent, rather than the lone parent who has caring responsibility for the child. We must therefore amend the Bill today or risk an absent parent using the measure as an excuse to avoid getting back to work.
	Nevertheless, to set that drafting error to one side, in both Houses there has been vigorous debate—we hear some echoes of it now—about when, based on the age of the youngest child, we should start requiring lone parents to undertake work-related activity. Based on those debates, and on the changes we have made to put the safeguards that I have described on the face of the Bill, we still believe that starting the process when a lone parent's youngest child is aged three is right, not only because there is normally a strong foundation of child care provision available for children in this age range, but because it will allow them gradually to build their confidence and skills at a pace that suits them over four years, rather than being expected to cram in the work-related activity that they need to undertake when their youngest child is five to six.
	Some 76 per cent. of non-working lone parents use the free child care offered for three and four-year-olds that was developed by this Government. Most schools now have reception classes for four-year-olds. Surely it is reasonable to ask parents to use a fraction of that time to start to get ready for work? For example, 74 per cent. of non-working lone parents do not hold any qualifications. Three quarters use the free child care; three quarters have no qualifications. Why would not we ask them to take up the offer of free education to get a basic literacy and numeracy qualification in some of the time when their children are receiving an early years education?
	The Conservatives, according to what their leader said today, think that
	"the first step is to redistribute power and control form the central state and its agencies to individuals and local communities. That way we can create the opportunity for people to take responsibility."
	If that is what they truly believe—if this is to be a new fresh start for the Tories on poverty—they have to support the Government amendment today. Work-related activity for lone parents of children aged three to five is precisely what the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) is talking about; it is creating
	"the opportunity for people to take responsibility."

James Clappison: rose—

Jim Knight: It is worth the House noting that the Opposition believe that it is appropriate to have financial sanctions in respect of work-focused interviews for lone parents whose youngest children are from three to five years old. They agree that financial sanctions are appropriate in those circumstances, but in his question the hon. Gentleman wondered about work-related activity. If he believes in the work-focused interview, which sets out an action plan for parents, but has no means of enforcing that plan, he is being inconsistent.
	I have said already that I believe that we need to have the opportunity to configure the support for longer than two years. Many lone parents face substantial problems, and that means that we must be able to configure the support on offer to enable them to overcome the obstacles to getting into work. It would appear that not only are the Opposition inconsistent but they are not serious about tackling poverty. If they are serious about poverty, why are they voting against this proposed action to cut child poverty? If they are serious about responsibility, why are they voting to take away the responsibility for lone parents whose children are in education to take up the support that they need?
	We know that the Opposition want to abolish the new deal for lone parents, and now they want to oppose creating the opportunity for people to take responsibility. However, we appreciate the concerns raised by stakeholders, and those raised by Labour Members. They are nervous that our good intentions may not work in practice so—ever reasonable—I am seeking the House's agreement to offer, in lieu of the Lords amendment, an amendment of our own that would provide yet one more safeguard.
	The House will be aware that the Bill serves to set out the framework of the work-related activity proposals that we wish to test before national implementation, and that the detail of those proposals will be set out in regulations. The amendment that I propose would require all work-related activity regulations, in so far as they relate to lone parents with children under seven, to be brought back to the House for further affirmative debate before being introduced nationally. That should reassure the House that passing the Bill will not have the effect of shutting the door on further debate about work-related activity for this customer group. Any regulations made within five years after royal assent will come back to the House and the other place, and Members of both Houses will have every opportunity to consider whether work-related activity is working in practice.
	I believe that it is right for lone parents to begin the journey towards work in good time, so that they can take positive steps to prepare for rejoining the labour market and help take themselves and their families out of poverty. To remove their responsibility to start to get ready for work early would also remove the responsibility of Jobcentre Plus to provide support from an early stage.
	That would be wrong. It would be a backward step, and could only come from the motivation to save money at the expense of those who need support the most. That may be the Opposition's agenda, but it is not ours. We are proud of the new deal for lone parents that the Opposition want to abolish. We are proud that more lone parents are getting into work, and that they see that these measures are necessary if we are to continue our good work on tackling child poverty through work. I look forward to hearing whether the Opposition are really serious about poverty, or whether with them it is all talk and no action.
	I urge the House to overturn Lords amendment 2, and to support Government amendment (a) in lieu.

James Clappison: May I begin by welcoming the Minister to the proceedings on this Bill? He has obviously spent some time studying the provisions, and he will know from previous debates that we on this side of the House have expressed broad support for the Bill and its objectives. We support many of the measures in the Bill—as we should, indeed, since we suggested many of them before the Government took them up. I admire the dexterity with which the Minister has approached the Lords amendments, and the main issue that lies at the heart of them.
	The House could be forgiven for forgetting about Lords amendment 2 altogether, given how long it took the Minister to come to it. From the outset, therefore, I want to make it clear that this is the issue that lies between the parties as far as these Lords amendments are concerned. I shall take a little time to go through the issue, as I think that the Minister will have to accept, when he hears what we have to say about it, that we have been completely consistent. We welcome many of the safeguards, but he has spent such a long time putting them in place and speaking about them that it makes one wonder what is the point of the sanction in the first place. We remain uncomfortable about that sanction for reasons that I shall explain.
	In approaching the question of what is to be required of lone parents, I agree with the generality of what the Minister said about getting them ready for work. We certainly believe that it is important that lone parents be helped to prepare for work, and we have not opposed general moves to take a more active approach in that field—far from it. We were at the forefront in suggesting that the age at which income support would come to an end should be lowered, and that there should be a transfer from income support to jobseeker's allowance. The Minister knows the thinking of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) on the issue, and that seems to have played a part in shaping the Government's thinking.
	We note that until last year single parents were entitled to remain on income support until their youngest child reached 16 years old. Such parents were, therefore, under what has generally been described as a passive regime, which neither made many requirements of them nor, certainly for parents of children up to 16 years old, contained the threat of sanctions that is now in the Bill. The effect of the Government's proposals is to lower the bar for those sanctions from the age of 16 to the age of three.
	The Government announced the reform of the income support regime for lone parents only in the summer of 2007, and began its phased implementation last year. We have heard from the Minister about amendments in another place introducing safeguards on the requirements to be made of single parents when it comes to work-related activity, and we broadly support those safeguards. They were, in fact, announced as policy when the Bill was in Committee in our place, so in a small way I suppose that they mark progress.
	However, the important part of this debate is that, after all that the Minister has told us about safeguards, and the lengthy process of missed interviews, case reviews, written warnings, further warnings, home visits, fourth warnings and so on, there remains the possibility that lone parents with pre-school age children of three and four years old could face financial sanctions as a result of failing to comply with the proposed regime.

Anne McGuire: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the noble Lord Freud, who is no doubt watching these deliberations from on high somewhere, said that the Conservative party was not against financial sanctions? Indeed, he said:
	"Our amendment is drawn deliberately narrowly;"
	and that his party was not against
	"established financial sanctions for not complying with its—
	the regime's—
	"rather light requirements."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 2009; Vol. 713, c. 835.]
	There is an inherent contradiction in the Opposition's case, which makes me think that it is more about opportunism than about supporting lone parents.

James Clappison: The right hon. Lady has made her point, but may I draw her attention to Lords amendment 2? It says:
	"Nothing in this section shall cause any financial sanction to be imposed in the case of a single parent with a child under five years of age."
	That amendment was moved by my noble Friend Lord Freud, and it could not be more explicit. The right hon. Lady knows that we have been consistent throughout and argued that five years old should be the age at which work-related requirements are followed up with sanctions. We have been quite consistent about that throughout the Bill's passage in this place, as I think she knows, and in the other place; and the issue comes before the House today because of that amendment.
	I shall take the House through what is proposed. Parents of pre-school age children could be required to undertake work-related activity. They could be directed to undertake work-related activities by advisers. Presumably that means that their advisers may direct them to undertake specific work-related activities. After the process that the Minister has proposed, they could still face sanctions—including financial sanctions—if they fail to comply, as such sanctions remain part of the Government's arrangements. I wonder what is the purpose of these financial sanctions. The Minister did not give a sufficient explanation of why sanctions are considered to be so necessary for parents of children as young as three and four. We heard such a lot about safeguards, and that makes me think that something in the detail of the Bill is wrong. More and more safeguards have been added to the Bill during its passage through this House and another place.
	Why are the Government so stuck on this provision, and why are they so obstinate in their refusal to consider the issues at stake? Is the possible application of sanctions justified by what is at stake? After all, when the youngest child reaches the age of five, there will still be two years in which the lone parent can be engaged in work-related and progression-to-work activities before the child reaches the age at which the parent will be migrated from income support to jobseeker's allowance. We accept that that group may include many lone parents who face barriers to work and are not work ready, but two years will amount to a significant period in which they can be helped, backed throughout by the threat of sanctions, from which we do not demur. That will come on top of whatever other help they have received in the preceding period from the ages of three to five years, not backed by financial sanctions.
	We must consider whether the attainment of the child's school age is the appropriate point at which lone parents can be fully engaged in the Government's progression-to-work regime in its full rigour, backed by sanctions. As the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) will know, we have been consistent in advocating the age of five and have argued for that throughout. In Committee, I moved an amendment on those lines, which was defeated. We moved an amendment on Report when the matter came back before the House, and it was voted on and defeated. Therefore, prior to the passing of the Lords amendment, the age stood at three at which parents would come into the progression-to-work regime in its full rigour, with directions and mandatory work-related activities, and backed by sanctions. The Lords amendment has altered that so that the age now stands at five, which we think is more sensible.
	We must set this in the context of the progression-to-work model set out by the Government in their response to the Gregg report, which, notwithstanding everything that the Minister has said, remains the Government's policy. I look to him to demur from what I am saying if that is not the case. We are told that lone parents with children aged one to two years are:
	"Required to attend Work Focused Interviews and agree an action plan. They are not mandated to undertake any activities recorded on the action plan or any other activities, although they will be encouraged to do so on a voluntary basis".
	Once the child has turned three, the lone parent is:
	"Required to follow the progression to work regime based around Work Focused Interviews, action plans, work related activity and the backstop of adviser direction".
	On any view, the full rigour of the regime kicks in at three. The Lords amendment suggests that at least these parents should not face the liability for financial sanctions under the regime.
	The Minister announced as a great concession amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment. I think that he possibly put it a little strongly when he suggested that it was a great safeguard. I am not saying that the amendment is unwelcome, but I invite the House to consider it and set it against the issues at stake. The Minister did not deal with it in great detail, so it might assist Members if I provide a little more detail to enable them to assess how much value should be attached to it. It requires the affirmative resolution procedure to be followed in respect of regulations imposing work-related activities on lone parents of children under seven. Although that is welcome in itself, it does not address the questions that arise from the motion on amendment 2. The amendment in lieu deals with work-related activities to be imposed on the lone parents in question, not the sanctions that are to be imposed as a result of a breach of those requirements.

Diane Abbott: I do not want to sound cynical, but affirmative resolution procedures are invariably not worth the paper that they are written on. By the time the matters in question come back to the House, people have forgotten the details of the original debate and the votes are whipped, so they are worthless undertakings. They should not be allowed to deflect Members from the issue at stake today, which is women with children as young as three having financial sanctions imposed on them because of the Government's proposal.

James Clappison: I think I was a little kinder than the hon. Lady in what I said about the value of affirmative resolutions. As a parliamentarian, I always welcome the affirmative procedure and argue in favour of it when considering Bills, but one needs a tinge of realism when discussing the subject.
	I am always in favour of parliamentary debates, but following the hon. Lady's point I would say that even when the regulations come before the House, they will not deal with the issue in question. The affirmative resolution procedure will relate to the regulations, not to the sanctions that will back them up. We will have no say on the sanctions. Also, the affirmative resolution procedure will be in respect of requirements for children under seven. The question is what will happen to people with children under five, not under seven, so I respectfully argue that the amendment in lieu does not make a great deal of difference. The Minister put it a little too strongly when he said that it was the necessary safeguard in lieu of the Lords amendment, because it does not address the question at all. It is a bit of a misrepresentation to say that it is an amendment in lieu in the sense of forming a satisfactory replacement for the amendment from the House of Lords. It is off the point altogether.
	Similarly, the Government have introduced other amendments, which the Minister spoke about at great length earlier. I broadly welcome many of them, but again I question whether they address the point at issue between us. The amendments that the Government introduced in another place were put forward on the basis of addressing the concerns that have been expressed about the requirements made of lone parents with younger children. Many such concerns were widely expressed in another place. The Government brought forward amendments described as a package of concessions—I believe that the Minister himself has described them as such—so let us see how good the concessions are on the point about protecting lone parents of younger children from financial sanctions.
	Lords amendments 3 and 4 are Government amendments designed to ensure that lone parents with a child under three could not be required to undertake work-related activity. However, that is not a change in policy, because the Government have always stated that that was their intention. They said that right from the start and throughout Committee stage in this place. They stated that their intention was that lone parents with children under three would not be subject to the full regime of work progression. The amendments put that policy intention into law, but they do not in any way answer the question of what should happen to lone parents of children aged between three and five, which is what Lords amendment 2 is about.
	Similarly, Lords amendment 5 would give lone parents entitled to income support a right to restrict the hours for which they will be required to undertake work-related activity. We are told that it could be used to enable them to restrict such activities to their child's hours of schooling or formal child care. Even then, if they had made that restriction and were found not to be in compliance with the requirements, they would face financial sanctions. That amendment therefore does not address that question either.
	Lords amendments 10, 26 and 78 provide that regulations prescribing just cause for failing to undertake mandatory activities must expressly state that availability of child care and the claimant's physical or mental health or condition will always be considered. Again, however, we had already been told that the availability of child care was to be taken into account as a matter of policy. The Minister introduced that as a concession today, but we were told that in Committee by his then ministerial colleague, the right hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). He told the Committee, before the Bill went to the other place that
	"the absence of such provision will be taken fully into account when discussing the details of an individual's work-related activity at three." ——[ Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 24 February 2009; c. 120.]
	That has been included in the Bill, but it would have been the Government's policy in any case. I will leave the House to judge the value of that concession as part of the package of concessions.
	Taking the concessions in the round, they are either on a different matter or they put into law what would be Government policy in any case. They still leave open the possibility of lone parents of children as young as three or four facing the threat of financial sanctions. Although we may welcome the amendments, we do not think that they tackle the matter at stake. The Minister went through them carefully, but as a package of concessions, it misses the point, which, for us, has been an issue all along.
	Let me deal with an amendment that we welcome. It represents a new development and is about a different subject. The Minister mentioned Lords amendment 25 and he was right about it. Under it, the Secretary of State would be required to exercise existing regulation-making powers to provide that victims of domestic violence can, for 13 weeks, start or continue a claim for jobseeker's allowance without being available for employment. That is a good idea, which we welcome. It is in line with what we proposed in a strategy paper in December 2008, when we suggested a three-month period of grace, during which women who were housed in refuges should be exempt from the requirement to seek work to qualify for jobseeker's allowance. It is right that we recognise the stresses, strains and problems that such women face at that unfortunate time in their lives. We accept that women who are the victims of domestic violence will have suffered considerable emotional distress and find themselves dealing with several practical issues, making it difficult for them to find work.
	We remain concerned about Lords amendment 2 and the Government's motion to disagree. I say to Labour Members that our position on lone parents with children aged under five has been consistent throughout. If one examines the history, the Government have some questions to answer about their consistency on the matter. Originally, in the Green Paper of July 2008, they chose five as the age at which the requirements should be imposed. Barely six months later, they unilaterally lowered the age to three, without giving any justification, in response to the Gregg report on conditionality.
	In March, because we supported the Government's original proposal—that five was the appropriate age—the then Secretary of State accused us of opposing the whole Bill and of using our view on age to block welfare reform. On Third Reading, he said:
	"This Bill has gone through despite the opposition of Her Majesty's Opposition and it has gone through as a Labour Bill. They said that it would go through only with their support; it has gone through despite their opposition. That shows that they are not serious about welfare reform."—[ Official Report, 17 March 2009; Vol. 489, c. 865.]
	I shall leave it to the House to judge, but there was no such talk from the Minister today. In March we were portrayed as the determined opponents of welfare reform in the Government's eyes, whereas today, if one judges from what was said on "Today" earlier, we are the dangerous proponents of welfare reform. The Government should make up their mind about their attitude to welfare reform. They are currently oscillating—saying one thing, then another. They are all over the place.
	There is an important matter at stake—the single issue that lies between us. Although we broadly support the Bill, we are concerned about the financial sanctions. Given that we are considering children as young as three and four, and lone parents, with the financial pressures that they face and all the stresses in their lives, the Government must make a better case against the amendment that was passed in the House of Lords if they propose imposing a regime of such sanctions on lone parents. We have not heard that case today, and we remain concerned about the matter. We believe that the House of Lords was right and nothing that we have heard so far from the Labour Benches has dissuaded us.

John Grogan: I rise briefly to support Lords amendment 2 and reluctantly to oppose those on the Treasury Bench. I shall make three points, the first of which is on the politics of the amendment.
	When I first read the amendment, which effectively raises from three to five the age that children must attain before their parents are subject to benefits sanction if they are not enthusiastic enough about work-related activity, I had been following the debate in outline rather than in detail, and I wondered who had made the proposal in the other place: at first, I thought it might be a liberal bishop with a social conscience; then I thought it might be a former Labour MP rocking the boat, perish the thought; finally I thought it might be an independent peer—perhaps someone with a long record in the voluntary sector—who felt strongly about the issue. To my amazement, who should have proposed this amendment in the other place but the noble Lord Freud? I am not an expert in welfare reform and it took me five or 10 seconds to think, "Who exactly is the noble Lord Freud?" Of course, I remembered that he is very same welfare reform guru who advised my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) when he was a welfare reform Minister.

John Grogan: Indeed. Lord Freud also produced a report for the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Following the production of that report, I recall a report in  The Daily Telegraph that said that our current Prime Minister had a "45-minute shouting match" with the noble Lord Freud before the latter was
	"aggressively cross-examined by a room full of Treasury advisers".
	What has politics become? Here we have a Labour Government, whom I am proud to serve as a humble Back Bencher, adopting a more hard-line position than the noble Lord Freud and the Conservatives. That makes me question our position.
	Secondly, I acknowledge that although the Secretary of State—it is a pity that she is not here this afternoon—has stuck to the position that it is possible for parents of three and four-year-old children to face benefit sanctions, as has been spelled out today, she has hemmed it in with all sorts of qualifications. For example, the well-being of the child has to be considered, and the basic policy outlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister is three strikes and out. Then, of course, there is the question of the statutory instrument, which would require the approval of the House. When my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) questioned the effectiveness of such a measure, my eyes were opened. I always believed that SIs were a safeguard, but apparently they are not.
	There are safeguards, but at the end of the day, it might be that in a few months' time, possibly in a little room in a jobcentre in South Dorset or in Pontefract and Castleford, a vulnerable single parent will sit at one end of the table and an official will sit at the other, and the former will have to justify their actions, justify why they are not taking up the appropriate child care so that they can do work-related activity or justify their personal circumstances.
	I am a great believer in Fabianism, but there is a part of the Webb tradition that borders on authoritarianism and says, "We know best." It is a bold claim, but I think those who are doubtful about the Government's position, including me, speak for middle England. Selby is a middle England constituency, similar in some ways to South Dorset. The Opposition are right to say that thinking has changed on the Government Benches. Most people in middle England would say that there should be sticks as well as carrots when children of single parents attain a certain age, but most would be shocked to think that a Labour Government are proposing to cut up to 40 per cent. of benefits in the worst cases, and that they are proposing to make those savage cuts to the benefits of parents whose children are under five. I do not think that we are carrying middle England with us on the issue.
	I said that I would be brief, so I shall make my third point. It is a pity that the Secretary of State is not here today, because I recognise, as do some of the pressure groups, such as Gingerbread, that she has tried to make the Bill more family-friendly. We in Yorkshire know that she is a warm, generous-hearted and engaging character, rather like my right hon. Friend the Minister. She has enlivened Yorkshire politics since she joined us in 2001 and has since brought up a family and a husband— [ Laughter. ] They have all enlightened Yorkshire politics.
	This proposal is mean-spirited. It is cold, austere and technocratic, and it is unworthy of the Secretary of State and the Minister. I ask the Minister, even at this stage and in the spirit of Christmas, which is soon to be upon us, to drop his opposition to amendment 2.

Steve Webb: Like the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), I am a great fan of the Webbs.
	I find it odd that an amendment tabled by a former Government adviser who now feels comfortable in the Conservative party is being resisted as "too soft". Sometimes I cannot work out who is on which side. We have to be on the side of the child and the family, so we have real concerns about the motion to disagree with amendment 2.
	Various arguments have been advanced as to why we should reject amendment 2. One is that the amendment is not clear, because it uses the phrase "single parent" rather than "lone parent", but it is fairly obvious what it means. Indeed, Lord McKenzie, in opposing the amendment in the other place said that it would mean that
	"lone parents with a youngest child aged three or four would be required to attend a work-focused interview",—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 2009; Vol. 713, c. 840.]
	so he knew perfectly well what it meant. If the Government's only objection is that this amendment is not tidy enough, they could have tabled an amendment to make the provision work properly, but they do not want it to work properly, which is not a credible argument.
	It has been argued that the amendment does not apply to the full range of benefits, but only to certain ones, and that it could be tidied up. If it simply needs sorting out, but its spirit is accepted, the Government could deal with the matter. However, the Government do not want to deal with the matter, because they do not agree with the principle, and it is the principle that must concern us now.
	I thought that the Minister was very candid when I asked him why we need the stick. Why do we need to blackmail lone parents with a youngest child of three or four to take all the goodies, help and assistance that is on offer? According to the Government, lone parents need to be forced to take that, because the Government know what is best for them. That is clearly the Government's position, as the Minister hinted when he said that we have to make it more uncomfortable for lone parents to do the wrong thing. The key question for Liberals is who decides what is the wrong thing for someone responsible for the well-being of a child aged three or four. Even when a child is as young as three or four, the Government say that they, rather than the parent, know what is best for that child, and they will threaten the household's well-being if the parent does not do what they want, which seems very presumptuous.

Jim Knight: We are not saying that we know what is best for the child; we are saying that the well-being of the child comes first. This should be at the convenience of the parent—if adequate child care is available, and while the child is in whatever child care, nursery setting or school that the parent thinks is appropriate. All we are saying is that work is the best route out of poverty. If we are committed to tackling child poverty, we have to make it easier, and put the structures in place, for lone parents to be able to get back into work.

Steve Webb: There is a non sequitur in the Government's argument. They seem to argue that—the Minister in the Lords, Lord McKenzie, argued this—without the threat, the support cannot be provided, which is nonsense. Lord McKenzie said that, if we accept the amendment, it
	"would mean depriving lone parents with a youngest child aged three or four of the help and support that they may need".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 2009; Vol. 713, c. 839.]
	Why? Why does the absence of bullying, a threat or a sanction prevent Governments and jobcentres from contacting lone parents, encouraging them and telling them what is available? Why do we need to threaten them?

Steve Webb: That is absolutely right. There is a fiction in the Department for Work and Pensions that when sanctions are applied, they are sanctions on the adult bit of the benefit. However, the implications of the sanction are felt by the whole household. The Minister has said, "Ah no, we have brought in a safeguard—the well-being of the child." I have looked at the three amendments in the group relating to the well-being of the child, and they relate to action plans—amendments 8 and 54—and to jobseekers' agreements.
	Will the Minister clarify something? Surely it is very hard to argue that the sanction does not adversely affect the welfare of the child, so how does the safeguard work? The action plan is drawn up with the welfare of the child in mind, as, too, is the jobseekers' agreement. However, if the lone parent does not comply, will an appeal tribunal or a DWP official argue, "Well, it is in mum's best interest that she gets to work, because work is the best route out of poverty, so even if the child has to live below the breadline for a while, it is for the best."? It is hard to know what that so-called safeguard means.

John Mason: The phrase, "the best route out of poverty is work", concerns me a little, first because it is not always a route out of poverty. There is a second reason however: according to the Government's logic, that route could take us right down to age zero. Surely for some families, where both kids and adults are affected by lots of problems, the best thing is not to be working; however, such families should not be in poverty either.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out in an earlier intervention that there are as many children in poverty in working households as in non-working households, so work in itself is not a guarantee of being out of poverty. I also take his point that it should surely be for the lone parent themselves to judge what is in the best interests of their family, particularly when their children are young, rather than for the state to impose that on them.
	The safeguards, although welcome if we have to lump what the Government propose, make the system even more complicated for someone trying to navigate it. Such a person might fail to comply, after which they get another go, but then they might fail to comply again. One of the earlier speakers in this debate said, "It's three strikes and you're out," and the Minister said from a sedentary position, "It's four strikes and you're out," but at what point is a decision appealable? If someone says, "I don't think this is in the best interests of the child—it's in breach of the Lords amendments," can the individual concerned go to appeal? Can they go to appeal because someone says that something conflicts with the child's school hours or school holidays? Can someone go to appeal on the availability of child care? The Government say that there is enough good child care available, but what if someone says that there is not, because they would need to get a bus there and they do not have the money for the bus fare?
	Everything gets incredibly complicated. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) mentioned in an intervention a family with five children. Often we are talking about families with not only one child under five, but several. Life can be incredibly complex and messy, and then there are all the hoops to jump through and all the caveats—you might satisfy this one, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but can you appeal against that one? Lone parents with young children do not need the grief, but that is what the additional threat will give them.
	By all means let us contact lone parents and support them. Let us make the options that we give them as attractive as possible. Then I envisage that many will take those options up and see them as being to their long-term benefit. However, if a lone mother—or a lone father—decides that something is in the best interests of herself, her children and her family, she should have the right to do so.

Diane Abbott: I rise to speak in support of Lords amendment 2, but let me first nail the idea, which seems to emanate from my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, that single mothers as a group do not want to work and that they have to be coerced and threatened into doing so. The majority in my circle of friends are or were single mothers—some had children as early as 15—but they all went back to work. Indeed, some went back to work and got degrees—they did that of their own free will, 20 years ago, in circumstances that were a lot harder. My experience from my constituency is that single mothers with any type of skill are anxious to return to work and will do so given the right support.
	What we are talking about in this debate is the Government's wish to coerce a residual group of young women, who probably do not have skills and almost certainly have very little education, back to work. Let us pause and think. I went back to work when my son was eight days old. I have nothing in principle against women with young children going back to work, but I was a well-paid woman doing a job that I loved. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are talking about ill-educated girls going back to work to stack shelves or do a service job, often in split shifts. That is the work that they want to drive those girls back to, not work that they would want to leave their three-year-old children to do. The first thing to say, therefore, is that the vast majority of single mothers, given the right support and encouragement, will go back to work as the Government wish.

Diane Abbott: No.
	Given the right support and help with child care, the majority of single mothers will go back to work. However, we are talking about a residual group of women who, in practice, go back at the very bottom of the work pyramid, to do jobs that none of us would want to leave our three-year-old children to do.
	The second point is that the Government's proposal is based on fantasy figures about the availability of nursery care and child care for children aged three. Ministers have said that nursery places are available for three quarters of children, but that is not my experience in Hackney. My experience is that people regularly come to me with children aged five and above who cannot get places for them in nursery. I would be happier with the Government's proposal if the Government came to me with solid research to show that nursery provision is available for 75, 80 or 90 per cent. of children, but that is not my experience in the east end of London.
	We therefore have a proposal based on fantasy figures about the availability of child care. However, even if child care were available to 100 per cent. of such children, speaking as a single mother—albeit a well-paid one—I put it to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that although some children skip off happily to nursery at the age of three and never look back, some do not like nursery, while others are sick every minute and have to stay at home for a week or two at a time. It is very hard for someone with a child who is poorly every other week or who has something wrong with them to sustain permanent employment. Only the mother is best placed to judge whether she can leave her three-year-old and go out to work.
	As I have said, some children are happy in nursery at the age of two or three, but some need more support because of health issues or whatever. The mother should be able to judge that, not some official in a jobcentre. Even if 100 per cent. nursery care were available, which it is not, I believe that Ministers are peddling fantasy figures. Only a mother can tell whether it is best for her child to be left while she goes out to do work-related activity or to work. The residual group of mothers that we are talking about needs support and education as mothers; they do not need to be shoehorned into jobs at the bottom of the work pyramid.
	Ministers have tried to explain to me that those women will have to work only if it fits in with school or nursery hours. Again, they are not talking about the real world. Are they taking into account travel time to and from work and the time it takes to pick up children from nursery? When my son was five, I had to leave Westminster an hour and a quarter before picking him up from nursery. Are Ministers adding on these women's travelling time? Are they taking into account the time that it takes to travel to pick up another child from school after picking up a younger child from nursery? This is not real world stuff.
	Of course work is a route out of poverty, and of course we should encourage and support single mothers who want to go back to work. In the middle of a recession that has by no means played itself out, however, it is unconscionable to talk about imposing financial sanctions on women with children as young as three. We know that those women are on the breadline because they are on benefits.
	It is a fact that, nowadays, the proceedings of the House of Commons are not properly reported, if they are reported at all. Colleagues on the Treasury Bench will be grateful for that, because if ordinary Labour members and supporters could hear Labour Ministers talking about imposing financial sanctions on women with three-year-old children to get them into notional jobs in the middle of a very real recession, they would be shocked and unhappy. Ministers have not made their case, and I will be voting to support Lords amendment 2.

Lynne Jones: I should like to start by quoting from the Department for Work and Pensions' five-year strategy that was published in 2005. It states:
	"we think it would be wrong simply to move lone parents from Income Support onto the Jobseeker's Allowance regime: an unrestricted requirement to search for work is inappropriate, given the complex and difficult circumstances many lone parents face. We think such an approach would be expensive, unfair and ineffectual."
	I agree, but what has changed since 2005? Certainly, lone parents have continued to engage with work as their children have got older. They have been supported and helped by programmes such as the new deal, which I fully support. It seems, however, that we are constantly having to respond to the  Daily Mail-type agenda, which suggests that lone parents and other people on benefit—perhaps incapacity benefit—are somehow feckless and living the life of Riley while the state pays them luxurious benefits. That is not the case. As the DWP knows full well, the reality is that only a small proportion of lone parents with children over 11 are actually not in work. The figures that I have are probably not the most up to date, but they suggest that 19 per cent. of lone parents whose youngest child is over 11 claim income support. Of those, 25 per cent. are caring for a disabled child, and 28 per cent. have a disability themselves.
	The reality is that lone parents do engage in work, and as the child care becomes less onerous as their children get older—or as the access to child care improves—more of them are returning to work. Research has shown that access to good quality child care is the biggest factor in determining whether lone parents go out to work. I commend the Government's work over the years on improving access to child care, but we still have a long way to go. In that quote, the Government seemed to acknowledge that lone parents have difficult lives and that they have to juggle their work and home lives.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that it is not for some bureaucrat to decide what is best for children. Most parents take responsibility for their children and do a good job. We should value the work that parents do in bringing up their children. That in itself is a valid contribution to our society. By all means, those who want to work and can work should be encouraged to do so, but we as a society should value the work that parents do in bringing up children and value the decisions they make about how best to do that. Yes, some people may be inadequate and need support, so we need programmes to offer it, but I do not agree with having sanctions to deprive people who are already poor of their benefits, as this may affect the children.
	The biggest problem people face is coping with poverty. Yes, work will help people get out of poverty, but for some people, it is not in the interests of their family for them to work. The Government acknowledge that, as we have had all sorts of concessions made to the original proposals, which I welcome. I think that the new Secretary of State has engaged positively, trying to reflect the realities of life for lone parents in trying to engage with work, but what we have as a result is a very complex and bureaucratic system. We know that people do not understand complex systems. We know that those on the receiving end of those bureaucratic complexities do not understand them. We also know that the staff who administer those complex regulations are often not very good at understanding them. As a result, we do not always get the right decisions.
	I remain of the view that the Government are right to support people on benefits, lone parents and other groups to engage in work so that they have a life of their own away from their caring responsibilities. That is good. I think that most lone parents who experience that kind of support value it and want to engage, so I think it is unnecessary to have these complex regulations to invoke sanctions against already poor people. We know from DWP research that staff themselves feel very uncomfortable about introducing a mandatory element into their work with lone parents. The Government should listen to the views of those staff, which are well documented in the DWP's own research publications.

Lynne Jones: I think the answer is in what I said at the beginning of my contribution—that there is an agenda out there that we have to be tough. I simply do not accept the idea of tough love. I think that we need positive encouragement and incentives for people to live a more fulfilled life, which they often experience by going out to work. I take my hon. Friend's point that some jobs that people engage in are low paid and not particularly interesting to do, but even those jobs provide the advantage of enabling people to meet others and to develop friendships and comradeships with their fellow workers. I believe that people value that experience; it is part of being part of society.

Anne McGuire: We have almost reached an agreement. We agree that it is important for young women, in particular, to remain in contact with the labour market. May I point out, however, that the subject of sanctions—on which I understand that my hon. Friend holds a principled position—arises very far down the line? There is encouragement, support and negotiation for months before sanctions are even mentioned. Does she not accept that that encouragement is built into the programmes proposed by my right hon. Friend the Minister?

Lynne Jones: I do not accept that sanctions are necessary. All that can be said for them is that they provide a structure for the relationship, because staff cannot simply give up the attempt to make contact; they must continue the encouragement. That is the only beneficial aspect of a sanctions programme that I can see, and if it is to be used so rarely, why invoke it?
	I think I am right in saying that since sanctions were introduced for work-focused interviews, about 4 per cent.—not an insignificant figure—of lone parents have had to endure them. My argument is that we need to ensure that the services on offer are excellent and effective, that we need to involve lone parents in the identification of what services are effective and ensure that they are on offer, and that if for some reason a lone parent does not engage with the process initially, we must not give up but must use other means of drawing their attention to the availability of support, such as Sure Start centres and after-school activities involving parents. The support should be seen as a positive element, and that can be achieved through members of these people's peer group, rather than their being forced to jump through hoops because Ministers want to appear tough.
	In an earlier intervention, which was rather lengthy, I gave an example involving one of my constituents. Her children are older than the ones that we are discussing, but the case demonstrates that DWP staff know that it is a waste of time trying to develop an action plan for parents such as her to engage with the world of work, because they will never be in a position to do that.
	I have visited my constituent at her home, and she has explained to me how she has to juggle her commitments in order to be there for her children. Some of them go to school, and she has to be there when they come home. They have severe disabilities. I know that because my constituent is a carer she will not be required to engage in work-focused activity, but none the less she is being subjected to regular mandatory work-focused interviews, and she resents that very much. For her, it is a complete waste of time—it is a waste of her time, and it is a waste of the staff's time.
	My constituent acknowledges that she would like to maintain a relationship with the person who interviews her, because she is really nice and they have a nice chat. However, that is all that it amounts to: a nice chat. I think that it is probably better to support people who need nice chats in other areas of public services, such as schools and health care settings, than to force them to participate in work-focused interviews. She says she knows other parents of disabled children who feel that these requirements are unnecessary and intrusive.
	Today we only have the opportunity to vote on removing the benefits sanctions in relation to three to five-year-olds, but we are concerned in general with a group that has young children and for whom child care is the most difficult to organise. I, too, will be supporting the Lords amendment. I just wish that we were not going down this route and that we were sticking to the voluntary approach.

Jim Knight: We have had an interesting debate, during which I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling—

Jim Knight: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) for her sterling support?
	We started with an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). My right hon. Friend described the speech as opportunism. I agree. The Opposition are simply playing politics rather than being serious. I confirm that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord Freud in the other place was restricted to work-related activity, so the position in the other place—there are countless examples of the noble Lord Freud saying something slightly different from the Opposition spokesman—was clear: there is no problem with financial sanctions in respect of lone parents whose youngest child is aged between three and five. The measure was in respect of work-related activity. Indeed, there was no problem with sanctions; it was only a question of financial sanctions. The hon. Gentleman talked, bizarrely, about what sounded like vouchers and about making it inconvenient by forcing people to travel across cities. For the avoidance of doubt, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the regulations in amendment (a) would include the sanctions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) made a typically clear and, at times, amusing contribution, but I would obviously dispute that we are being mean-spirited. We are trying to help and support this group of lone parents, to improve that help and support and to build on the success of the new deal for lone parents. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) paid tribute to that programme.
	The hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) talked about whether he would be characterised as too soft. He worried that we thought we knew best. I dealt with most of his points in a series of interventions, but if he agrees in any way with conditionality, he must see merit in what we are arguing.
	I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that we do not want to sanction anybody. We want lone parents to be supported and to get back into work, but in a way that is sympathetic to their needs as parents. That is what I said at the outset: the principle on family-friendly working is that we believe that work is the best route out of poverty but that, first and foremost, those parents have a responsibility to their children. Any requirement that we put on them, first and foremost, has to bear in mind the needs of the children and their needs as parents. I hope that it never comes to using any of these sanctions, but having them in place helps to focus the system.
	I would also say to the hon. Member for Northavon that the work-related activity must flow from an action plan, so the safeguard does apply to work-related activity. It was unfortunate that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington did not want to take any interventions, as that meant I was unable to clarify a few matters for her. She accused me of using fantasy figures, although they were taken from the Department for Children, Schools and Families child care and early years survey of parents of last year, but I think there was some fantasy attached to her argument. We are not talking about forcing people into work; we are talking about people agreeing with us an action plan through the work-focused interview, and then, at the end of a very long sanctions process, the possibility of financial sanctions. There is a guarantee of a child care place for 15 hours a week from 2010 and currently for 12.5 hours, which is already in place in Hackney for all three and four-year-olds, but if that is not in place in practice, that is certainly a good cause for a lone parent not to take advantage of the work-related activity that we would provide.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) made an interesting contribution. She said we were merely competing with the other side as to which party was tougher. That is not our motivation at all. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling made clear in some of her useful interventions, our motivation is to help people—to help these lone parents be able to get into work—because there is a fundamental point here: we have to go back to the truth that the longer someone is out of the labour market, the more difficult it is for them to get back into work. Members have to weigh up in their minds whether or not they are serious about trying to help these lone parents overcome the obstacles to their getting back into work. Many of them will have more than one child, and if they wait until their youngest child is five, they will be waiting longer than five years to get back into the labour market. We want them to be able to have a flying start if they want one, once their children start school— [Interruption.] Yes, if they want one. They would not be required to go into work until their children are seven, but we want them to be able to have a flying start, and those of them who have literacy and numeracy problems—as many lone parents do—will need the time to be able to acquire those skills by taking advantage of the support on offer to them and to build their attachment to the labour market. That is why they need more than two years.
	That is why this policy is right, and that is why the Conservatives have, within hours, failed to adhere to the principles on tackling poverty that were set out in the speech their leader delivered earlier. They are failing the test of wanting to tackle child poverty. This is at the heart of why the Government urge the House to agree to our amendment, and to disagree to the Lords amendment.

Jim Knight: Many of the amendments in this group are technical and consequential, and I shall therefore not linger on them. I anticipate that there will be most interest in the proposals on renaming council tax benefit as council tax rebate and on uprating, so I shall dwell on those at slightly more length.
	There are six amendments that end provision for pilot schemes that impose a benefit sanction on people who breach a community order. They have been superseded by new measures and are no longer necessary.
	There is then a group containing four amendments in respect of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, following a very useful report that I am sure all parts of the House welcomed. The amendments will put them into effect.
	Amendment 16 will resolve a technical issue in respect of disability living allowance and remove what is effectively a duplicate clause. Amendments 19 to 22 will resolve a further technical issue in payments on account and achieve better benefit alignment in respect of the use of the social fund. Our own internal scrutiny found that there was no need to include housing benefit in the scope of that measure.
	Amendments 23 and 52 deal with the uprating of benefits. That important change will enable us to meet our promise to pensioners to increase basic state pension from April by 2.5 per cent., which will be worth about £1 billion over the course of the year. The amendments will allow the Secretary of State to consider uprating certain social security benefits in April 2010, even if there is no increase in the general level of prices. The retail prices index has been traditionally used to determine an increase in the general level of prices.

Jim Knight: As hon. Members will be aware, next year's benefit rates will be announced at the pre-Budget report and in the subsequent uprating statement, and I am therefore unable to pre-empt those announcements this afternoon by legislating accordingly.
	These measures are, of course, a further demonstration of the Government's commitment to tackling pensioner poverty, which has resulted in almost 1 million fewer pensioners in poverty than when we came to office in 1997. Poverty is clearly a topical issue.
	Amendments 29 and 51 are very important measures that would rename council tax benefit. I should like to start by paying tribute to the Royal British Legion not just for the services that right hon. and hon. Members will have attended throughout the country last Sunday, including the excellent services that I attended at Portland and Swanage in my constituency, or for the importance of the act of remembrance that we will observe tomorrow morning, but for its campaign to rename council tax benefit "council tax rebate". It has led an impressive campaign against pensioner poverty generally, and in particular it has clearly demonstrated how important a name change might be for many of the people whom it represents. It speaks for all pensioners, but particularly for ex-service personnel, who have given so much to this country. We want to ensure that they are afforded the dignity that they deserve and are not put off from receiving what they are most certainly entitled to.
	I should like also to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber. She has not just raised the issue with the Prime Minister in the House, but met the Secretary of State and given sterling support to the campaign. The amendments will insert a new clause that requires the Secretary of State, by order, to change the name of council tax benefit to council tax rebate. They will allow for consequential changes to references to council tax benefit in other legislation and documents. The first use of the power will require the approval of Parliament through the affirmative procedure. That will provide a further opportunity to debate the precise details of how the measure will be implemented, following proper consultation with interested parties, especially local government and pensioner groups.
	The Government have introduced the amendments to help address the low take-up of council tax benefit by removing a barrier that many pensioners face in claiming help with the payment of their council tax bill. We believe that some people, particularly pensioners, are deterred from claiming benefits but would be much more comfortable about claiming once they understood the true nature of the help to which they are entitled—in this case, a rebate on their council tax bill.
	When I spoke to the previous amendments, I referred to this Government's excellent record on tackling pensioner poverty. We continue to do all we can to encourage pensioners to take up the benefits and help to which they are entitled, but the take-up of some key benefits, including council tax benefit, is still disappointing. We believe that the renaming is right, and it has received unanimous support from all parties in the House.
	In summary, the amendments contain important measures that will enable the Government to continue to act on our commitment to help pensioners to receive the help that we have put in place and to which they are entitled.

Mark Harper: As the Minister said, this is a miscellaneous group of amendments—and I shall speak to a few of them. Lords amendments 1 and 24 deal with pilots. I agree with the Minister that the need for those pilots has been superseded by a change in legislation, but I want to press him in one area that may provide a lesson on how Ministers conduct pilots in future. The pilots were originally introduced in 2001. Given that they are no longer needed, it is right to remove their legislative basis, but eight years seems like a fair wait. In the other place, there was a debate about how long the pilots had run for, how long the assessment had taken, and how long the decision had taken to introduce something else. We need to ensure that the pilots on new measures in the Bill run for no longer than is necessary to establish whether there is sufficient evidence as to whether they work—and that if they do work, we should not necessarily run them for their full period, but should learn from them and then decide whether they should be rolled out more widely. That would be a sensible lesson to draw from the amendments.
	Lords amendments 13, 14, 17 and 18 improve the extent to which this House and the other place have control over some of the proposals in the Bill, by inserting affirmative resolutions and replacing ministerial direction with a need for regulations. Those measures are welcome, as they strengthen the powers of this House.
	Lords amendment 16 relates to disability living allowance and the extension of higher-rate mobility allowance to people with a visual impairment. Will the Minister clarify where the funding for that will come from? When we discussed the relevant new clause on Report, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), who is in his place, announced the Government's decision to support it right at the end of the debate, so there was insufficient opportunity to probe him on the date of the introduction of the change, and exactly where the Government had found the funding for it.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I will be able to state our position at the end of my remarks, and I think he will be pleased with the answer.
	When we debated this matter in the Public Bill Committee— [ Interruption. ] I hear the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) chuckling away; I will refer to our exchanges on Report as well. In Committee, the Under-Secretary said:
	"While the Government fully recognise the intentions behind the new clause, accepting it without having the funding to support it would require us to withdraw funding from elsewhere in the benefit system." ——[ Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 270.]
	He said that he was not in a position to give a time scale showing when he would be in a position to finance a change to the rules. Two weeks later, when the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), was asked the same question at Work and Pensions questions, he was unable to give a commitment on being able to fund it.
	The very next day, 17 March, when we debated the matter on Report, we had a lively debate in which a number of Members took part. The Under-Secretary said right at the end of his remarks that he was
	"delighted to announce today that we are now in a position to agree to fund this proposal".—[ Official Report, 17 March 2009; Vol. 489, c. 855.]
	He said that he took great pleasure in accepting what was then new clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson), who was in his place earlier but is not here now.
	That was right at the end of the Minister's remarks, and he then sat down, not giving Members the opportunity to press him on when that measure would come in or how it was to be funded. I took the opportunity afterwards to press him with some written questions, and he confirmed that it would not come into force until 2011-12, a year later than had been indicated in earlier written answers. The Government had not committed to introducing it in 2010-11, but they suggested that that would be the earliest available opportunity.
	In a written answer about funding the measure, the Minister said:
	"We are confident that by the date of its introduction the Department will have re-prioritised annually managed expenditure to ensure that funding is available."—[ Official Report, 23 March 2009; Vol. 490, c. 83W.]
	Putting that together with his previous answer, he was effectively saying that he would take the money away from some other benefit to fund the change. He had not really found the money at all, he was just saying that by 2011 he would have worked out some way of paying for it. I can see why he did not particularly want to be pressed on the matter, and it is important that we put that on the record.
	In answer to the question that the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) asked, in thinking about the future I have had some conversations with my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I can confirm that if—subject to the voters—we were in government in 2011, we would indeed bring that measure forward and fund it from within the departmental budget. It will therefore go forward whatever the result of the general election.

Mark Harper: I will not outline our excellent policies in great detail, because that would be straying away from the amendments, but the hon. Gentleman will know the impressive proposals that we have published in our work programme, such as getting people back to work and investing the savings that result. I am therefore confident that within the budgets that we have available, we will be able to fund that measure without having to cut any other programmes. I am pleased that people with a visual impairment can rest assured that this welcome measure can be introduced regardless of the result of the general election.
	The Minister of State suggested that Lords amendment 23 might be of interest, and the hon. Member for Northavon has already mentioned it. It is about the power to uprate benefits following a review in the tax year 2009-10. It is an interesting amendment that prompts a number of questions. When Lord McKenzie introduced it in the other place, he made it clear that it was
	"intended to give the Government the flexibility to uprate the basic state pension by the commitment of 2.5 per cent. and to uprate other social security benefits as the Secretary of State thinks fit, even though the level of prices, as measured by the retail prices index, has not increased."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 2009; Vol. 713, c. 918.]
	That prompts a number of questions, because the former Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), said in the House of Commons on 11 December 2008, when he was making the annual benefits uprating statement:
	"We enshrined a 2.5 per cent. floor in the Pensions Act 2008, so if inflation goes down to zero, as some anticipate, there will always be at least that 2.5 per cent."—[ Official Report, 11 December 2008; Vol. 485, c. 700.]
	I was not aware of that change, so I consulted the Library, which does not believe that either the Pensions Act 2008 or the Pensions Act 2007 has been changed to give effect to that statement. It thinks that it was a non-statutory Government commitment. What the right hon. Member for Harrow, East said in the House does not seem consistent with Lord McKenzie's comments. Will the Minister confirm whether his colleague, the former Minister, may have inadvertently misled the House about the basis for the 2.5 per cent. uprating in cases where the retail prices index has not risen? If the provision is already in the Pensions Act, it is not needed to uprate the basic state pension, which is the main reason that Lord McKenzie gave for introducing it. I think that that was the basis of the point that the hon. Member for Northavon made.
	The hon. Member for Northavon wondered why the change was a one-off, which would take effect for only the coming financial year. Lords amendment 23 is very specific. It is a new clause, entitled, "Power to up-rate benefits following review in tax year 2009-10"—the current tax year. It provides that if
	"the general level of prices is no greater at the end of the period...than it was at the beginning",
	the Secretary of State will have the power, looking at the national economic situation, to make changes to benefits in the following year. Of course, that is the year of the general election. That raises the question of whether we are considering a pre-election ploy or gimmick. Now that we have established that the general level of prices could fall or be zero, I cannot understand why no permanent change is being made to the Social Security Administration Act 1992, providing the power for the Secretary of State to make the judgment on an ongoing basis. I cannot understand why the decision is for one year only.
	When the hon. Member for Northavon pressed the Minister, he gave a reply, but it did not answer the question. He said that he could not pre-empt the Chancellor's announcements in the pre-Budget report, but the hon. Gentleman had not asked him to do that. I might try to tempt him to do it—I know he will not go there—but the hon. Gentleman was not asking about rates of increase; he simply asked why the change was not permanent. As things stand, if by next September the general level of prices has not increased and inflation remains negative, and a Government nevertheless wish to increase the basic state pension or other benefits, it would be necessary to change primary legislation again. I do not therefore understand why the Government have not made the change permanent, and it would be helpful if the Minister explained.
	I do not wish to tempt the Minister to go beyond his brief and say what other benefits the Chancellor might change in the pre-Budget report, but it might be useful if he gave the House some idea of what factors may be taken into account when setting those benefit rates. In the outside world, people who work have experienced a growth of only 1.6 per cent. in average earnings in the year to August—a reduction from 1.8 per cent. to July. In the private sector, pay growth is just 1.2 per cent., compared with 3.2 per cent. in the public sector. Those who have to go out and earn a living will expect that to be taken into account when Ministers set benefit levels.
	The Minister mentioned council tax benefit and the change in the name, which we greatly welcome. I can do no better than repeat the words of my noble Friend Lord Freud, who said in the other place:
	"we welcome the government amendment."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, Vol. 713, c.1108.]
	He rightly paid tribute to the campaign that the Royal British Legion highlighted to focus on the fact that the benefit was really a rebate, and that if the language were changed, it would make a significant difference to pensioners' attitude to taking up what they are rightfully owed. He made the point that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had pledged to support the change, and supported the amendment on behalf of our party in the other place. As the Minister rightly said, that amendment has cross-party support.
	On Third Reading in the Lords, the Government accepted the amendment tabled by Baroness Turner of Camden to strengthen the change slightly by replacing "may" with "shall", and that toughened up the provision. I recognise that there are some significant challenges of detail to face, and I simply emphasise what I am sure is this House's wish that the process should get under way as quickly as possible so that the change can be made as soon as possible.
	I conclude with an observation. In the debate on the previous group, I think that the Minister established a new parliamentary convention, which we may wish to call the Knight convention, whereby he set out the Government's approach of putting sticks in primary legislation and carrots in secondary legislation, with the special twist that carrots might now be introduced in primary legislation. I have no idea whether that will catch on and be put in "Erskine May" in due course, but it may be something that the right hon. Gentleman will leave behind for us all to enjoy in this House in the future.

Joan Ryan: I want to speak about Lords amendments 29 and 51. I join my right hon. Friend the Minister in paying tribute to the Royal British Legion and its work on changing the name of council tax benefit to council tax rebate. I, too, praise the work of Baroness Turner in the other place. I welcome the Government's clear commitment today to rename council tax benefit council tax rebate.
	I heard what was said about cross-party support—and there has been such support—but without the Government's willingness to act and to accept the amendment, the Secretary of State's willingness to meet Chris Simpkins, director general of the Royal British Legion, and me, and the work of former Ministers, we would not be in this position today. I therefore thank the Government for their action today.
	In the past year, I have worked with the Royal British Legion to get more veterans help with their council tax bills. We are considering dignity and respect in old age. We found that pensioners, especially many of our veterans, did not want to claim something called "benefit." They fought for their country, they have worked all their lives and they have paid their taxes, but now many forgo money that is rightly theirs simply because of the word "benefit." Words matter, and I am glad that the Minister acknowledges and understands that so well. It is not a subsidy, handout or benefit, but a rebate, and we needed to change the name.
	I am delighted that the Government have given a clear commitment to changing the name of council tax "benefit" to council tax "rebate". That may sound like a small change, but it will make a big difference to tens of thousands of veterans and hundreds of thousands of pensioners. In my constituency alone, as many as 3,000 pensioners could be up to £600 a year better off—£12 a week. That may not sound like a fortune, but for someone living on £130 a week, another £12 makes a big difference. We need to do all we can to ensure that our veterans and our pensioners get the extra help as soon as possible.
	I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will say a few words at the end of the debate about when we can expect the change to come into force. The Government's commitment is crucial and welcome, but I would like a clear indication of when they will implement it. If we agree that changing a "benefit" to a "rebate" is important, surely we also agree that it is important to effect that as soon as possible. Having asked for that information, I thank the Minister again for the commitment that he has given us today.

Steve Webb: Like the right hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), I welcome that small step towards trying to improve take-up of council tax benefit. It is worth while, but it is very small step on a very long journey. My understanding is that council tax benefit is the social security benefit with the worst take-up rate of any in the entire system. As she said, many hundreds of thousands of pensioners, and indeed many veterans, are missing out on serious sums.
	It has always struck me as absurd that we have a grotesquely unfair local tax system, which we then attempt to ameliorate with a hopelessly ineffective means-tested benefit. Calling it a "rebate" is entirely welcome and may encourage some who do not currently claim it to do so, and it is therefore a step in the right direction, but surely the better system would be to have a fair local tax system to begin with. If we did, we would not need council tax benefit—or indeed council tax rebate. That must be a better way to go.
	In the debate on this group of amendments, we have spoken about disability living allowance. One possible amendment is, as it were, the dog that did not bark. Will the Minister say where the Government are at on DLA reform? In another place, Ministers said that when a child is on DLA, a lone parent will not be sanctioned for not seeking work. There is some uncertainty whether that applies to people on the care component or the mobility component of DLA. We expected a Government amendment to implement that pledge, but none has been proposed. Will the Minister reiterate that when a lone parent has a child on DLA, they will not be sanctioned for not seeking work, and that that applies to both categories of DLA, not only the care component? Those who have lobbied on the issue would be grateful for a clear statement of the Government's position.
	We have spoken about the RPI amendment. I must admit that I, too, am rather baffled about this. I am sure I can recall years in the recent past when Ministers have increased the state pension by more than the RPI, so it cannot be that the law—primary legislation—prohibits increases greater than that in the RPI. Therefore, current regulations cannot set a ceiling on increases. Why do we need statutory powers to go beyond a floor? As the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) said, it is confusing why the amendment is in the Bill at all.

Steve Webb: I have two concerns about that. Perhaps I asked my first question too quickly and the Minister did not understand. Why would we want to give the Minister the power only for the year starting 2010. Why would it not be a general power? The same situation might happen not next year but in a few years' time, and there may not then be a social security Act passing through the House onto which to tag the power. We are trying to give Ministers more powers and they are turning us down, which puzzles me.
	Secondly, an interesting comment was made about the rate of increase. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean said, "Well, the Government have pledged 2.5 per cent. but people who earn their living will want to see benefits set taking account of the fact that average earnings increases are only 1 to 1.5 per cent. or so." He seemed to be implying—I will certainly give way to him if he was not—that the Government are going ahead with 2.5 per cent. because that is their promise, but that people in work would want the Government to have regard to 1.5 per cent. Was he saying that 2.5 per cent. is too big an increase? Otherwise, what was the relevance of the 1.5 per cent?

Mark Harper: I was distinguishing between the pension increase, which, as the Government have lately set out, will be 2.5 per cent., which we welcome, and other social security benefits. They have been silent about how much social security benefits might be increased by if they use the same power. I wanted the Minister to lay out the sorts of things that they would take into account. Of course he will not be able to do that today—it will be a matter for the Chancellor—but it would be helpful if he could give some indication of the Government's thinking.

Steve Webb: I am grateful for that clarification.
	The other issue in this group of amendments is the failed pilots. Actually, that description is rather uncharitable, and I do not like being uncharitable. A pilot that proves that a scheme is not a good idea is not a failed pilot, but a pilot: a scheme was trialled and tried, and proved not to be cost-effective.
	I could not help musing that we have spent about an hour and a half this afternoon talking about a new sanctions regime, when we are repealing a sanction that did not work. It is great that the Government tried a sanction for offenders and discovered that it was more trouble that it was worth, and cost more than it saved. I cannot help wondering whether the Government might not learn from that experience in other areas. It is always easy to apply the rhetoric of being tough, penalising people and forcing them to do what they should do, but some sanctions can be counterproductive, and we have a case before us this very afternoon.
	In conclusion, broadly speaking, this is a very welcome group of amendments. Many outside the House would welcome clarification from Ministers on what they are doing about DLA, and whether the RPI power will be used in future—and if it will, why Ministers did not give themselves the power to do that in this legislation.

Bob Spink: I rise to support this group of amendments generally and the renaming of council tax benefit to council tax rebate in particular. It is not a matter of gesture politics; it has real significance. I hope it will send a strong message to pensioners in particular to take up what is theirs by right. Hundreds of veterans and thousands of pensioners in my constituency could benefit from this refocusing, so I very much welcome it.
	I join other hon. Members in pressing the Minister to state when it might come into force and urge the Government to take further action to increase pensioner take-up of income and support. For instance, take-up of pensioner tax credits is very poor, and I have run a campaign about it in my constituency twice in the past two years, but that is another debate.
	The Minister is absolutely right and gracious to praise the Royal British Legion. Its campaigns have been excellent and I hope that the Government will continue to listen carefully to it. It speaks a lot of sense on a wide range of issues. I am happy to welcome this group of amendments.

Mark Harper: For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister confirm that what his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), told the House when he made the benefits uprating statement in December 2008—that the power to uprate the basic state pension by at least 2.5 per cent., even if inflation was zero, was in the Pensions Act 2008—is not correct?

Jim Knight: It is difficult for me to speak with absolute confidence in respect of what my right hon. Friend said, because I have not looked at the precise words, but he may have been referring to the reintroduction of the earnings link in the Pensions Act 2007. The 2.5 per cent. commitment is a non-statutory commitment, but it is of course carried forward in the amendment.
	The hon. Member for Northavon raised some questions about failed pilot schemes. He was probably alluding to the debate on the previous group of amendments, in which we discussed the effective piloting of the lone parents sanctions regime. It is worth noting that the numbers of lone parents on lone parent benefit continue to fall, despite the recession, and that is with a more rigorous sanctions regime in place. So we have a degree of confidence that the principle of sanctions will work in this case.
	I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) for her speech, as I am grateful for the work that she has done on campaigning for this change. She not only reinforced the importance of the campaign as a whole, but spoke up for the 3,000 of her constituents who will benefit from the change and demonstrated her continuing personal commitment to campaign for them.
	My right hon. Friend asked the obvious question about timing. I cannot give her as exact a response as she would like. We are committed to making the change as soon as possible, but we are unable to commit to an exact time frame without first completing the detailed work needed to assess the practicality and costs involved, and that requires us to consult with the local authorities to ensure that the change is introduced properly and effectively. For example, changes are needed to the 380 local authority IT systems and to DWP computer systems, including those that provide the essential link with the pensioners at the point of claim. References are also made to the name in a wide range of forms and leaflets. We have already begun the process and I hope that my right hon. Friend and others will understand and accept that, as yet, we cannot set out a timetable, but the commitment is there and the work has started.
	The hon. Member for Forest of Dean asked a series of questions. He is right that when we pilot and we find enough evidence that something works, we should get on with it. On the other hand, if something is not working well, we should stop and, when it is next legislatively convenient, remove the powers. That is what we have done in this case, and he will see examples in which we assess quickly and get on with rolling things out more widely.
	I was interested in the exchange around amendment 16 and can conclude only that we now have all-party agreement that we need to reprioritise annually managed expenditure into departmental expenditure limits in order to fund that.
	I have responded to the main questions on uprating that the hon. Gentleman asked in response to what the hon. Member for Northavon said, and I will not be drawn into commenting on carrot and sticks at this point. I urge the House to agree the amendments.
	 Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
	 Lords amendments 3 to 27 agreed to , with Commons privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 11, 12, 19 to 21, 23 and 25 .

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Lords amendments 61 to 77, 79 and 80.

Jim Knight: We estimate that around 350,000 heroin and crack cocaine users are on some form of benefit in this country. We need to help these people overcome their dependence, take control of their lives and get back into work. As the House knows, we are discussing the part of the Bill that is establishing pilots to ensure that problem drug users engage with the rehabilitation process where their drug use is a barrier to work, and do so under threat of sanction. These amendments will improve the pilot design to assist people on this journey, and address concerns raised in both Houses.
	The Government will provide additional support and treatment. In return, and in order to receive benefit payments—we will pilot this approach—claimants with a drug dependency that is a barrier to employment and who are not already receiving drug treatment will be required to sign up to a rehabilitation plan that will outline how they will engage with the help that is available to them to overcome their addiction. We are clear that doing nothing will no longer be an option.
	If claimants take up treatment voluntarily, they will be offered a treatment allowance and a place on a new drug and employment support programme, which will provide integrated and personalised support for problem drug users on jobseeker's allowance or employment support allowance. That allowance will be paid to the claimant as long as they agree, via a voluntary rehabilitation plan, to maintain their treatment and take advantage of the additional support available. It will remove some of the normal conditions of entitlement for benefit in order to allow drug users the time and space to focus on their recovery. For example, it will mean that they will no longer have to tell a member of our staff once a fortnight that they are actively seeking work, when clearly they may not be doing so because of their drug problem. The allowance will be payable to the claimant for up to 12 months as long as they maintain their treatment and take advantage of the additional support available.
	If problem drug users are not already in treatment, and are neither prepared nor ready to engage with treatment services, they will be required to sign up to a rehabilitation plan that will direct them to attend a series of assessments and an educational programme, with the aim of encouraging them into treatment. However, if they fail to engage in these activities without good cause, they will be subject to benefit sanctions. It should be noted that where there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that problem drug use is an issue, claimants can also be mandated to attend these assessments.
	If the individual attends the educational and motivational sessions and decides against treatment but signs that drug use is a barrier to work remain, they will be referred back to the assessment process. That ensures continuity of contact with treatment providers until such time as a person feels ready to receive treatment. It is important that those identified as problem drug users take the first steps on the journey to overcome their addiction.
	If advisers have reasonable grounds to suspect that drug use is an issue, they can refer the claimant to an assessment with a treatment adviser to establish whether that is indeed the case. Should the claimant fail to attend the assessment on the grounds that they do not use drugs, prior to any sanctions being applied they will be offered the opportunity to take a drugs test to show that that is indeed the case—effectively, it would be an opportunity to clear their name in respect of their relationship with the adviser. If the test is negative, no further action will be taken. Should such individuals refuse a voluntary drugs test, and receive two consecutive sanctions for failure to attend the assessment, they will be mandated to a drugs test.
	Proposed new paragraph 7A will tighten up the data-sharing powers considerably, in particular by preventing Jobcentre Plus from obtaining information about a person's medical and social work history. Amendment 67 also provides that the information provided by the police and probation service can be used only with those involved in administering the new programme.

Mark Harper: The Minister will know from reading the report of the debate in Committee that we were very supportive of the Government's proposals in this area and agreed that this is a significant problem. The Minister outlined the numbers—350,000 people on out-of-work benefits who are problem drug users for whom that is a barrier to moving into work. That is clearly a problem that people expect us to deal with. We had some clear discussions in Committee and both sides agreed that it needs to be dealt with, so we welcome the proposals.
	The pilots will involve only a relatively small number of problem drug users—I think, from a debate in the other place, about 10,000. Will the Minister clarify how the pilots will be allocated across the United Kingdom? We had some good debates in Committee on how they will work in England, Wales and Scotland. There are many references in the Lords amendments to the rehabilitation plans. Obviously, there is a key dependency on health services in the different parts of the UK, and health, of course, is a devolved matter. One issue that came out in Committee concerned the different priorities in England, Wales and Scotland in rehabilitation provision. I think that Ministers in Committee accepted that effectively the pilots will happen first in England, then Wales and then Scotland. Have further discussions taken place between Ministers in the Department and Members of the devolved Welsh Assembly Government and Scottish Government about the pilots and how far the planning has got? For the pilots to be successful, and to give a good indication of success, they will need to be tried in the constituent parts of the UK. That would be helpful.
	Returning to a comment that I made earlier about pilots, it is important quickly to understand whether the approach laid out in the Lords amendments will be successful, and if it will, to move on at a significant pace. The hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) talked about alcohol problems, which we debated in Committee. There are powers in the Bill to deal with alcohol; the Government simply made the judgment that drugs are a more significant priority and should be dealt with first. They indicated, however—and Ministers have confirmed this—that alcohol problems would be looked at. We very much support that. I simply want the Minister to lay out how the Government envisage the pilots being spread across the different constituent parts of the UK. I think that the pilots are supposed to be for three years, and so will tackle only a relatively small part of the problem. If they are successful, we will have to consider how they can be rolled out. However, we support the amendments.

Steve Webb: I regard this group of amendments as making the best of a bad job. The provisions relating to drug and alcohol addiction are offensive and authoritarian, and it would have been better to take them out of the Bill altogether. The amendments make things slightly less bad, but the pilots will prove that we have an awfully long way to go before we get an effective response to the issues of drug and alcohol abuse.
	I agree with the Minister that doing nothing is not an option. However, there is an incredible paucity of services, particularly for alcohol abuse, but in many cases for drug abuse too, and a lack of support for substance abusers and their families. There is a huge proactive, positive, supportive agenda that could have been implemented first. Then we could have returned to considering what threats and sanctions to apply to those who do not comply. Returning to sticks and carrots, there is an awful lot of carrot yet to be chewed on—to mix my metaphors.
	The Minister used an interesting phrase. Once again, we are guilty of weasel words: he said that those who refuse to take a voluntary drug test will be mandated to do so. That does not sound terribly voluntary. If Ministers just come clean and say, "We are going to force people to take a test, and if they do not take it, we will take money off them", that is fair enough. That is a legitimate position—it is not one that I share, but it is one that the Government take. It is always striking, however, when the Government refuse to describe accurately what they are doing, perhaps because they are embarrassed about it.
	If the Government are confident in the rightness of what they are doing, they ought to call a spade a spade. They ought to be clear about what they are doing. Let us consider the idea that it would be helpful for drug addicts to have less money because they will not take a test or accept treatment. We all know the consequences of people with persistent drug addictions not having as much money as they used to. Far from being tough and effective, that will create new victims of crime and will be an entirely negative and regressive step.
	We certainly welcome the amendments to the extent that they soften measures that ought never to have been passed into legislation in the first place, but that is about all we can say for them.

Jim Knight: With the leave of the House, I shall respond as briefly as possible to the points made.
	I welcome the welcome from the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) for the amendments. He asked about the pilots. The English pilots will run for two years from October 2010 in five Jobcentre Plus districts: Cumbria and Lancashire, west Yorkshire, Merseyside, Birmingham and Solihull, and central London. The selection of pilot areas has taken into account the number of problem drug users, the geographical, urban and rural spread, and the availability and choice of treatment. He is right to raise the point that there are different arrangements in Wales and Scotland. There have been ministerial and official discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government and the Scottish Parliament about the possibility of running a pilot in Wales and Scotland, and we are continuing with those discussions.
	The hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) accused me of weasel words, which I found most extraordinary—it is a mammal that I admire, but not one that I seek to imitate. Drug tests will be used in two scenarios. If a claimant refuses to attend a substance-related assessment on the grounds that they are not a drug user, they will be offered a voluntary drug test to show that that is the case. A person might be required to take one or more tests, if they have been referred for a substance-related assessment with a drug treatment provider and have failed to do so without good cause on two occasions. We cannot make them take the test, but we can make them suffer a benefit sanction for refusing to do so. In the end, it will be their choice to do it or suffer the sanction if they refuse. That is reasonable, because in the end they need to address their problem drug use if they are to get back into work.
	On that basis, I hope that we can agree to the amendments.
	 Lords amendment 28 agreed to.
	 Lords amendment 29 agreed to.

Jonathan R Shaw: It will be useful if I address amendments 34 to 37 first. These amendments restructure clause 33 and make subsequent changes to clauses 34 and 35 to reflect the restructuring of clause 33.
	During the debates in this House and the other place, we listened carefully to the broad consensus that the wording of the Bill should more clearly signal the original policy intention that we set out in the welfare reform White Paper. The original wording of clause 33 was deliberately cast broadly to ensure that we could enable trailblazers to test innovative approaches to delivering the right to control. However, we recognise that the wording could set out more clearly that disabled people are at the centre of the right-to-control provisions.
	Amendments 30 to 33, amendment 38 and amendments 44 to 49 remove the exclusion of adult social care for the trailblazers and create an order-making power with which the exclusion can be permanently removed depending on the results of a trailblazer evaluation. In the White Paper, we made clear our commitment to align adult community care services with the right to control. We also made clear our intention that disabled people will be at the centre of the right-to-control provisions. We outlined in Committee that adult community care services were originally excluded in the legislation to avoid duplicating existing community care and direct payments legislation.
	We have also made it clear that we deliberately cast the original wording of clause 33 broadly, to enable trailblazers to innovate and test the best ways to deliver the right to control. However, we recognise the importance of clarity in the Bill. We want the legislation to be clear, so that disabled people and local authorities know what the right to control means and what services are included. That is why we developed the amendments over the summer in co-production with Baroness Campbell of Surbiton and the Royal Association for Disability Rights to ensure that the legislation meets the needs of disabled people while retaining flexibility in delivering the right to control.
	We have also worked across government to ensure that the amendments to include the alignment with adult community care services do not compromise the existing community care legislation. We tabled the amendments in the other place, where they received cross-party support, with Lord Freud and Baroness Thomas adding their names to them. Baroness Campbell thanked the Government for the genuinely co-productive approach that we adopted in developing the amendments. I hope that support for the amendments is as universal in this House as it was in the other place.
	Amendments 39 to 43 are technical amendments that are necessary to ensure that where Welsh Ministers have Executive competence over funding streams, they can make secondary legislation to bring devolved funding streams and services within the right to control. It was always our intention that Welsh Ministers would have the ability to make regulations in relation to devolved funding streams and services. Amendments 39 to 43 are necessary to ensure that the legislation accurately reflects our intention.
	In summary, the amendments in the group are designed to ensure that the provisions accurately reflect our policy intention that the right to control will deliver genuine choice and control to disabled people over certain state funding that they receive. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mark Harper: The Minister will not be surprised to know that the amendments in the group have the support of the Opposition. I am pleased that the Government accepted them in the other place and worked closely with Baroness Campbell of Surbiton on co-producing them.
	The Government have effectively done what we urged them to do when we debated the issue in the Commons. The Minister will know, because he was the one dealing with part 2 of the Bill, that we pressed in Committee for the exclusion of community and social care services from the Bill to be removed. He is right; we highlighted the fact that the Bill included a broadly drawn power, which sounded encouraging, that was narrowed substantially by the exclusion of community care services. When we pressed the Minister in Committee, the answer that he gave was about avoiding duplication or causing confusion. We pressed him on that, and I am pleased that the discussions that took place—presumably between the Minister's Department and the Department of Health—have been successful. He has confirmed that the pilots will be able to include community care services and that if those pilots are successful, as I very much believe they will be—

Mark Harper: Yes, I must call them trailblazers. That is an important use of language, because it suggests to those running the schemes that that is how we want things to happen—it is important to recognise that there is cross-party support for the initiative. The trailblazers are being introduced to work out how best to do that; they are not pilot schemes that may or may not be successful. For those local authorities and other bodies that are thinking of implementing such programmes, it is worth knowing that there is a genuine commitment on both sides of the House to putting disabled people at the centre of the services provided to them and to having them being in control of the funding. That is an important message, so I am grateful to the Minister for heckling me and putting me right about calling the schemes "trailblazers".
	The Minister also drew attention to the work done in the other House, which involved Baroness Campbell of Surbiton working closely with the Minister—Baroness Campbell and I have also had many discussions about the matter. With the Lords amendments in the current group, the Bill now looks in good shape. As I was saying before we had that little diversion, if the trailblazers are successful, Ministers will have the general power to get rid of the community care exclusion, so that when the schemes are rolled out across the country, we will see genuinely joined-up services.
	One of the powerful things in this debate is that by taking money from different Departments, putting it together and giving it to the individuals concerned, thereby putting them in control and allowing them to spend it, we are likely to be more successful in joining up services and delivering them seamlessly, rather than having different Departments working alongside each other. I therefore welcome the amendments in the group that deal with that point.
	The first set of amendments that the Minister mentioned deal with, as it were, changing the order of precedence. I welcome the fact that the way in which the amendments are worded now puts the disabled person at the centre of things and makes it much clearer that the local or other authority with which they are working has to work with them in partnership, which was not adequately reflected in the original wording. That is a step forward.
	With those two changes together, we have an improved Bill. In particular, the right to control has the potential to change the lives of many disabled people significantly for the better and give them the opportunity to fulfil their potential. We therefore have no hesitation in welcoming the amendment.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mark Harper: I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to discuss Lords amendment 50 in relation to the travel authorisation provisions. I welcome the amendment from the Government. It follows a similar amendment that was tabled by my noble Friends, Lord Freud and Lord Taylor, on Report. There was a good debate on that occasion, in which Ministers made a commitment to return with a Government amendment. This amendment effectively delivers on that promise, and it was agreed with cross-party support in the other place.
	This is a sensible amendment. I could never understand why the Government were treating the powers relating to driving licences and travel authorisations in different ways, but two good things have now happened. First, we are now treating them consistently and, secondly, because Ministers will have to report back to Parliament, the affirmative resolution procedure will give this House and the other place the appropriate powers to decide whether this significant sanction should be carried forward on a permanent basis. I welcome this Lords amendment and we give it our support.

Helen Goodman: With the leave of the House, I am grateful for the agreement of the hon. Members for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) and for Northavon (Steve Webb). With respect to the measure on travel documents, I hope that the evidence that we have obtained from experience abroad will be replicated, but, as the hon. Member for Northavon has acknowledged, we will make a full assessment of the pilots and bring the matter back to the House, so that all hon. Members can take a view. I also hope that he is satisfied that we are incorporating sufficient safeguards—notwithstanding his dislike of the word "safeguards"—in the administrative approach, so that people who are affected by the measures will feel that their civil liberties are protected. I commend the amendments to the House.
	 Lords amendment 50 agreed to.
	 Lords  amendments 51 to 102 agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Health Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 8 June 2009 (Health Bill [Lords] (Programme)):
	 Consideration of Lords Message 
	1. Any Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	2. Proceedings on any such Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today's sitting.
	 Subsequent stages 
	3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement .— (Mary Creagh.)
	 Question agreed to.

Gillian Merron: All the amendments were passed in the other place yesterday. They are consequential to the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), which the House accepted on Report on 12 October. My right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) tabled a series of amendments on vending machines on Report. Of these, only the substantive amendment was considered and accepted by the House. Amendments 11A to 11G make the necessary consequential changes.
	As my right hon. Friend clearly explained to the House, the aim of the amendments was to remove the power to restrict sales of tobacco from vending machines. That meant that the national authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be able to make regulations only to ban tobacco sales from vending machines completely. As I have previously explained, vending machines are the usual source of cigarettes for 10 per cent. of 11 to 15-year-olds who say that they smoke—some 200,000 young people in 2007. These are the new recruits that the tobacco industry needs, to replace those who die. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have heard many powerful arguments on the need to act, given that some two thirds of current and past smokers say that they started smoking regularly before the age of 18, and that smoking kills more than 80,000 people every year.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made clear in his speech on Third Reading that the will of the House would be respected and that the Government would not seek to overturn the amendment in the other place. The amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield and amendments 11A to 11G were considered in the other place and were accepted. The consequential amendments replicate the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend on Report, but which were not reached. They ensure that the vending machine provisions are workable and achieve the full effect intended by the House. They also ensure that the provisions in clause 23 for Northern Ireland align with those in clause 22 for England and Wales. I can confirm that Ministers in both Wales and Northern Ireland are also committed to prohibiting the sale of tobacco from vending machines in accordance with the amendments.

Michael Penning: rose—

Michael Penning: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Let me say from the outset that I fully understand the Government introducing the amendments. They bring Northern Ireland and Wales into the legislation. However, what a mess the Bill was in when it left this House as a result of the speed of the Government's U-turn on vending machines during its passage, particularly on Report!
	In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and I tabled amendments that would have restricted access to vending machines, yet the Government opposed those on the basis that the Secretary of State wanted to keep control the provisions on vending machines. The Government did not at any stage of the Bill propose a total ban—until the last minute when the Whips clearly did a deal with the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), resulting in the obvious mess in the Bill as it went to the other place.
	There, the noble Baroness Thornton said that this House had voted on a free vote on the ban on vending machines, but that was not the case. A free vote could have taken place only if there were a Division on that basis. A free vote was allowed for the Opposition, but it was certainly not a free vote for Labour Members, yet we had called for one for all the smoking debates.
	With that in mind, when does the Minister expect to introduce the regulations, which will be subject to an affirmative resolution? When that happens, will there be a free vote on both sides of the House, which is exactly what should happen? We can certainly confirm that if we come into power, we will allow a free vote on all the smoking regulations. There will have to be an affirmative resolution, and let us hope that there is a free vote for the whole House.
	The seven consequential amendments are understandable because of the mess the Bill was in when it went to the other place. We accept the amendments even if we are unhappy about how they were handled.

Gillian Merron: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I say that protecting young people from the damage and death caused by tobacco is indeed a very serious issue, which the Government are determined to address? Tobacco vending machines, we believe, reflect a time when shops closed early and people were not able to purchase cigarettes out of hours, which is no longer the case. We think it right and proper to give effect to the will of the House because those vending machines exist for the convenience and temptation of those who smoke and as a means of recruiting new young smokers. As I have said, prohibiting the sale of tobacco from vending machines will be a major step forward in tackling the very serious problem of children and young people having access to tobacco and in supporting those who want to quit. I should also say that the measure brings the UK into line with many other countries, including 16 other EU states, that have banned the sale of tobacco from vending machines.

Michael Penning: The Minister is arguing for banning vending machines in a way that suggests that that was the Government's proposal all along, so I repeat that at no stage—on Second Reading, in Committee or on Report—did a Minister support what the she is saying now. Why have the Government changed their mind so quickly?

Gillian Merron: rose—

Gillian Merron: I will take your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Let me repeat a point made in an earlier discussion—that the evidence for action is clear; the issue is about how fast we go and how far. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) suggested that the will of the Commons was not clear. I take issue with that. As to the vote on vending machines on Report, it is clear that the House determines its own rules and the Speaker presides over the House to ensure that those rules are followed. The Speaker ruled on the day; the record of the decision is in  Hansard; the amendment was accepted—so that acceptance reflects the will of the House.

That the draft Ministry of Defence Police Appeals Tribunals Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 12 October, be approved. —(Mary Creagh.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
	That the draft Ministry of Defence Police (Conduct) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 12 October, be approved. —(Mary Creagh.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

That the draft Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Networks) Exemption Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 12 October, be approved. —(Mary Creagh.)
	 Question agreed to.

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13732/09, Commission/ Presidency Paper on an operational framework for the EU to promote aid effectiveness; and calls on the Commission and Member States actively to implement its recommendations. —(Mary Creagh.)
	 Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Lyn Brown.)

Mark Todd: It is a pleasure to have such a long time in which to debate this subject; I had not expected that.
	Free fruit and vegetables, such as carrots, have been provided for all infant-age children in English schools since the end of 2004. The introduction of the service followed pilots in 2000 and 2001 showing minimal delivery problems, strong support from children and staff, and even stronger support for the scheme as part of teaching children about healthy eating. I shall expand on the nature of the scheme, and on how it relates to the educational process and goes beyond health. The social process of distributing the fruit and eating it collectively was thought valuable, and there was a reported improvement in the ethos and atmosphere in classes.
	Straddling the introduction of the national scheme, a major research project was undertaken, based on a large sample of schools in 2003, 2004 and 2005. It showed, predictably, that fruit consumption rose among those in the scheme, and fell back once children ceased to qualify, effectively to the level of the control group who had never been in the scheme. Sadly, it also showed that children from deprived areas consumed less fruit than those in more affluent areas even when it was available. However, a similar increase in consumption occurred while they were in the scheme.
	Research by the National Foundation for Educational Research published in 2007 showed a material increase in the proportion of children consuming five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, but also showed that a pupil in year 3—the year immediately after the scheme ends—was less than half as likely to consume five portions a day as a younger child. Since, laudably, the Government have also been supporting improvements in school meals, it is hard to separate the benefits in terms of overall consumption of fruit and vegetables of the fruit scheme from those of other activities that the Government have supported, but the research suggested that those eating school meals, as opposed to packed lunches, were benefiting most.
	It was also clear that the full benefits of dietary change, in combating obesity, would occur only if fruit and vegetable consumption was substituted for consumption of sweets and desserts. It was not clear that that was happening. In other words, children were often consuming the extra fruit and vegetables at school, but not necessarily cutting out the sweets and other items available to them. The full benefit of the additional fruit and vegetables was therefore not being felt.
	It should not need to be explained why we should be interested in this issue. Fruit and vegetables provide critical vitamin and fibre intake for the body. Obesity in children both limits their ability to participate fully in school and threatens their health in the longer term. The staff of my hon. Friend the Minister will have been able to trace a chain of questions that I have asked since 2007. She nods in assent. Why have I been interested? Naturally the health policy arguments are persuasive anyway, but I was struck by something else: it is remarkable how popular this scheme is in schools, and how easily and efficiently it works.
	Let me give an example. Last Friday I visited one of the smallest primary schools in my constituency, in the village of Shardlow. I did not mention that I would be raising this topic in the House. In fact, as the Minister knows, I did not know that I would be raising it, because the subject of my motion has changed. However—quite unprompted—the head mentioned the popularity of the scheme in the school. She said that it was one of the Government's great successes in education.
	I have visited schools in which the scheme has been worked into classroom activities and integrated in the work of catering staffs, where they exist. In some of the small primary schools in my constituency there is no kitchen, but in many there is, and there is an opportunity to bring the work of the catering staff into the school My constituency recently produced the school cook of the year. It has a strong track record in school catering, which, as I have mentioned, is closely related to this area of policy of producing better nutritional standards for schools. There are regular references by head teachers and other staff to the scheme being a shared social activity. Eating fruit is a popular activity that can be linked to important subjects such as sharing and to getting across the nutritional content of fruit, while relating that to other parts of the school curriculum. Among many schemes that are seen by some to have burdened schools and to have had relatively limited effect, this is a shining star.
	So when the European Union published a proposal to support a Europe-wide school fruit scheme stretching beyond our own and covering children up to the age of 10, I was delighted. Surely that would provide an additional incentive to extend the UK scheme. The total costs of extending the scheme to all primary-age children would be £84 million a year, according to a parliamentary answer given late last year. That would roughly double the cost of the scheme, which costs around £43 million now. The European Union has set aside an indicative sum of just over €11 million for UK participation in the scheme. As is normal, the EU insists that any funding it provides be matched; the money cannot be used to replace existing Government funding. The marginal cost to the Department, depending on the use of the funding by the other authorities within the UK—an excellent Scottish scheme broadly parallels the English version—would be a little over £30 million. For the health impact that that would have on millions of children, the associated educational benefits and—perhaps this is one of the origins of the European interest in this issue—the impact on the horticulture sector in this country, it seems a startling bargain.
	We would have difficulty making an administrative mess; all the key structures and supply chains are already there and working effectively. The reason why the head at Shardlow drew this to my attention was that the delivery man had just arrived with the fruit. It was greeted with enthusiasm and he was asking for directions to a nearby school. The quality of the fruit was excellent and the scheme is popular with children. I have often asked the children which is the most popular fruit. Apparently, tomatoes are mentioned, although not enthusiastically, carrots are not enthusiastically eaten by tiny children, and apples and bananas are very popular. It is all working, something that cannot often be said of Government initiatives. We can build on it and we know it works. Little can go wrong. In policy terms, it is called low-hanging fruit—an easy target for policy development.
	It seemed so obvious to me that I assumed that the Government were keen to press ahead too with extending the age range, but extracting answers about our intentions once the EU decided to proceed 12 months ago has been hard. In July this year, a parliamentary answer from my hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to
	"a number of pilots and evaluation projects currently under way that are looking at the school fruit and vegetable scheme".—[ Official Report, 14 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 233W.]
	However, when I asked when those might be completed, my hon. Friend replied that there were no current pilots. Among the questions that I would like my hon. Friend to address is how this seeming confusion arose.
	I can speculate. The scheme is very popular in schools. The Scottish Executive commissioned research that found that it was
	"one of the most successful initiatives of its kind"
	with the only reservation being mine—that it did not cover more children. The scheme has strong support from horticultural interests, which could be a reason for the EU's enthusiasm, as agricultural interests are much more closely aligned with the political process in the EU. Yet the English scheme lies within the budget of the Department of Health, which inherited it from the lottery. I sense a policy orphan—a policy not invented here and not fitting precisely the strategies defined by the Department's team.
	I have found a similar attitude locally: "It is a nice scheme which we are happy to see continue, but we are rather more enthusiastic about other strategies for dealing with child nutrition and obesity." Some of the examples in Derbyshire are focused on the extremity of need in children—on the very obese and those with severe problems with the nutritional content of their food. Those are highly expensive and focused programmes that are needed in many ways but cannot be seen as comparable to the universal fruit and vegetable scheme.
	I would not argue that the school fruit and vegetable scheme is more than a part of a strategy for addressing the health of our primary-age children. Better school meals, stronger advice and labelling—I support a more aggressive approach to that for children's food—the promotion of physical activity, and support for parents through initiatives such as Sure Start which help build solid foundations for feeding children appropriately, all play an important part.

Mark Todd: On the first, I agree entirely. There are still examples of entirely inappropriate advertising, even with the tougher voluntary codes that have been adopted. Some of the links to merchandising have been broken. My son is big enough to be beyond this now—in fact he is bigger than me—but he used to link a lot of his eating patterns to merchandising for food products. Clearly that is very unhelpful to parents.
	On the second element, I can remember having free school milk as a child. I thought it valuable and it was. It was focused on a particular requirement at the time—the poor calcium content in diets, which may well have been remedied in a rather more affluent age. I support my hon. Friend in giving some further thought to making that a part of our strategy.
	The research to date gives a strong indication of where the scheme might help. Fruit and vegetable consumption falls sharply in school year 3, where the scheme ends. I will be utterly fair: the research suggests that there is a more complicated pattern than simply the termination of the school fruit scheme. It is not the case that because we stop giving out free fruit in year 3, all of a sudden the consumption of fruit and vegetables declines. It is not as simple as that, but that does appear to be part of the picture, and if we extend the scheme there is a reasonable chance that we can defer at least some of the change in the pattern of consumption among young people.
	Nutrition is an increasingly large part of the curriculum in junior years. The scheme would be a powerful practical tool for reinforcing key nutritional messages, and for ensuring that fruit and vegetables are seen not as a supplement to a poor diet but as replacements for excessive consumption of less useful foods. As the school curriculum rolls on to later years, the important elements of this scheme could be utilised still more as an educational tool, and be linked in with the science curriculum in a school, so teachers could say, for instance, "By consuming more apples, you'll get more fibre. Why is fibre important?" That would carry through some of the key educational messages, many of which cannot be taught nearly so readily to very young children. Habits are more likely to stick in an older child.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address some of the questions that I have raised. I have referred to the complexity of this subject; it engages a remit wider than that of the Department of Health. Indeed, to some extent, the Department is an uneasy parent of the scheme. I would therefore like, first, to know what consultations have taken place with other interested Departments, such as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Children, Schools and Families. Secondly, what were the pilots my hon. Friend the Minister referred to in one of her parliamentary answers? Thirdly, what is happening to the European Union money being offered to this country? I agree that just over €11 million is not going to solve our Government's problems at a stroke, but it is nevertheless a material sum when contributed towards a key objective of this kind.
	I am also interested in the age point, and the change in consumption that occurs then. What researched basis is there for favouring a scheme provided only to infants? I have talked about the year 3 impact—the drop in consumption of fruit and vegetables. We need to know more about this, and relate it to the scheme, which is a tool to address it. Is there any research that shows what changes happen at this point in a child's life, and how we can blunt them or, more optimistically, stop them happening, and thereby sustain the consumption of fruit and vegetables over a much longer period? If there is some doubt about the application of this scheme to older children, would it not be sensible to trial an extension to a broader age range to see what the effect is?
	As I illustrated earlier in my speech, we have been used to trials on this subject. We did valuable work in testing how things worked, how effectively we could distribute the food, and what impact it really had on children and schools. We could readily trial this beyond the current age group. I very much look forward to hearing the response of my hon. Friend the Minister.

David Drew: I shall be brief. I am delighted to be able to support my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) in this very worthy debate, which has now been allocated three hours. That is not quite what he expected, and my contribution will certainly not fill those three hours—but I want to make a couple of points that I believe are pertinent. They follow on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) about free school milk.
	Some of us remember the politics of free school milk, and also recall who took it away. I shall pass on from that, however, and instead say that one of the disappointing consequences of the removal of that service from younger children was its irreparably damaging impact on the milk industry. For a long time dairy farmers bore a grudge, because it was through them that we used to guarantee the supply of free school milk to primary school children. As someone who benefited from that, I can say with conviction that I think it was a sad day when that service was removed.
	Instead of discussing that, however, I want to look at the advantages of extending the current five-a-day fruit scheme into schools, and especially the supply side advantages of that. I say that as someone who has initiated a number of debates about the advantages of local supply chains. Much though I want children to eat fruit, I also want local farmers and landowners to have the opportunity to supply that fruit, particularly where there are county farm estates so that there is a natural circle to be joined, in that the children take the advantage of having that fruit, and it is supplied by county council smallholdings. That would provide a real kick-start.
	The only advantage of global warming is that we will be able to grow some things naturally in this country that previously we could not grow naturally. Much as I do not want global warming, we would be somewhat silly if we turned down this opportunity. Therefore, I want to hear from the Minister that there is some work going on with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to see how we can secure such local food chains.
	If we can do that for schools, we can do it for all manner of other local facilities. I am not calling for all that produce to be made freely available; I am just saying that this would be a wonderful way to kick-start the British horticultural industry, because it has a lot of potential, and at present too much of our fruit is imported from abroad when it does not need to be. If we get children accustomed to eating fruit, the demand that was initially satisfied through free provision might continue into later life, and other members of their family might also be tempted to go for five a day.
	More importantly, this would encourage local suppliers. I am a great believer in farmers markets. Stroud farmers market is a great success because much of its produce comes from local suppliers of fruit and vegetables. This scheme would be another way of encouraging the industry to grow by allowing it to meet, in different ways, an important need.

David Taylor: This certainly would be a boost to the horticultural industry, and it would also enable it to save some species—species of apples and pears, for instance—that are in danger of dying out, as orchards are being grubbed up. The expansion of the scheme would allow for a variety and range of products to be maintained, and would help local horticulture.

Gillian Merron: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on securing this debate on the important matter of the Government's provision of free fruit and vegetables in schools. I share the interest and passion that he showed for free fruit and vegetables in schools. He generously describes this Government scheme as a "shining star", and I welcome his support for it. On his recent visit to a school in Shardlow in his constituency, he saw exactly what I saw on a recent visit to Mount Street school in my constituency; we were both struck by the enthusiasm that the staff, children, parents and governors all shared for the school fruit and vegetables scheme. I am sure that it is why he has been joined by my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), who have also shown enthusiasm and support for the scheme.
	We all know that a healthy and balanced diet is critical to health and well-being. Only last week, I was glad to see the figures suggesting that childhood obesity is levelling off, and I am sure that my hon. Friends were, too. That is an impressive new trend but, as always, the challenge remains for us to help people of all ages to make the right choices and to make further progress, and that we will do. The five a day programme to raise awareness and promote the consumption of at least five 80 grams portions of fruit and vegetables was developed based on a recommendation from the World Health Organisation. That followed evidence that consuming at least 400 grams of fruit and vegetables each day could reduce the number of deaths from chronic diseases by up to a fifth—what a prize that is. It is also estimated that diet may contribute to the development of a third of all cancers, and that increasing fruit and vegetable consumption is the second most important cancer prevention strategy that we have to hand, after cutting out smoking—we have just discussed that issue in the House.
	Under the Government-funded school fruit and vegetable scheme, children aged four to six at local authority maintained infant, primary and special schools are given a free portion of fruit or vegetables on each school day. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire rightly said, since April 2004 the scheme has been funded by the Department of Health. To use his terminology, we regard ourselves as an easy parent to the scheme and are very committed to it, not least because 2 million children throughout England receive a free portion of fruit or vegetables every day.
	The scheme sits closely alongside a number of other actions that the Government are taking to improve children's health, including the following: the five a day programme, which continues to raise awareness to improve the level of consumption of fruit and vegetables among people in England and, thus, promote health and well-being; and the Change4Life scheme, which aims to raise awareness about diet and physical activity and to create what I would describe as a mass movement for change to help reduce obesity by helping to put across to people the need to eat well, move more and live longer—fruit and veg consumption is one of the key messages. There is also the free school meal pilot, which is a joint project—my hon. Friend is obviously interested in the work that we do across Departments—involving the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Department of Health, who have jointly allocated £20 million over the next two years, and participating local authorities and primary care trusts, who are contributing the same in matched funding
	In addition, we have Healthy Start, which is a UK-wide statutory scheme providing vouchers to low-income families to spend on milk, fresh fruit, fresh veg and infant formula milk, and access to vitamin supplements via the NHS. There is also the national healthy schools programme, which is a joint initiative between the DCSF and the Department of Health that promotes a "whole school, whole child" approach to health. On nutritional standards in schools, the Government recently introduced very welcome standards for school food in all local authority maintained primary, secondary, special and boarding schools, and pupil referral units in England. The new standards will cover all food sold or served in schools. Each of those programmes—and other work that we do across government—supports children in increasing their fruit and vegetable consumption and in making the very necessary healthy choices.
	I heard my hon. Friend's request for clarification about existing pilot schemes and about the extension of the scheme beyond infants. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for any confusion over answers to parliamentary questions, and I am grateful to him for bringing this to my attention. For complete clarity, the written answer that he has mentioned referred to free school meals, while the evaluation that he referred to relates to the school fruit and vegetable scheme. I am sure that he will be pleased to learn that the popularity of the school fruit and veg scheme has prompted some local education authorities and PCTs in England to take a local decision to fund its extension to seven to 10-year-olds. Those areas include Hull, where the scheme is funded by the city council; Liverpool, where it is funded by the PCT; and North Tyneside, where it is funded by the council. In addition, Sheffield PCT is also funding three schools in its area in respect of pupils aged 11 to 13, and I understand that it hopes to extend that to a further five schools in January 2010 and then to an additional five schools in April 2010.
	Furthermore, one way in which we are planning to extend the scheme to more children and their families is by using the existing distribution network to promote child-friendly recipe cards, not only to four to six-year-olds, but to children up to the age of 10. We have already started doing this kind of work by using this scheme to distribute Change4Life information, which has secured an impressive response from families with young children. The school fruit and veg scheme, like other Government programmes, provides a firm foundation, which can be built on by local authorities and local health services, should they so wish.
	I want to mention the comments made by my three hon. Friends. I heard their points, which were well made, about supporting British agriculture and the farming community. I assure my hon. Friends and the House that I have recently held discussions with the relevant Minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about how we can do that still further.

Mark Todd: My hon. Friend has referred to quite large-scale extensions of the schemes in various parts of the country, and I am very interested in their results, as I am sure that she is. The test that I set was the extent to which we can reverse the problem of the drop-off in the consumption of fruit and vegetables in year 3, but in my constituency a number of schools have voluntarily extended the schemes to all their children. They have done so partly to make the schemes more inclusive and less divisive—these are popular schemes that are denied to older children—and partly because of the perceived benefits of the scheme to all children within the school.

Gillian Merron: My hon. Friend makes my point well for me. Of course, the scheme is a foundation on which others can build should they feel that it is appropriate, should they feel able to and should they wish to.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire rightly pointed out that decisions must be made on the basis of proper evaluation. As we have heard, the National Foundation for Educational Research, in conjunction with the university of Leeds, has recently undertaken an evaluation of the school fruit and vegetable scheme, focusing on consumption levels and the dietary impact of the scheme. The next report is due to be published soon, and I look forward to sharing it with my hon. Friend and the House. Together with the Department for Children, Schools and Families, we are evaluating the pilot of the free school meals programme.
	Let me now turn to the European school fruit scheme, which forms the substance of our discussions. The school fruit and vegetable scheme for England is a leader in Europe, and other member states seek to emulate it. No other EU country does what we do so extensively. I might say that we are at the top of the class when it comes to providing free fruit and vegetables to children every day of every school week.
	I want to reassure my hon. Friend that the Government have not opted out of the scheme, which operates annually. This is just the first year of operation. Perhaps it will be helpful if I give a small amount of detail. Member states need to inform the Commission by 31 May each year whether they intend to submit a bid to take part in the scheme for the following school year. It is the EU's intention that the scheme can commence as early as the start of the academic year in September, although it recognises that that is a very tight timetable in which to get the schemes in place.
	The situation is challenging, as agreement has only just been reached on the Commission's implementing rules, which were published on 7 April 2009. The Commission's accompanying guidance notes have only just been published in draft form. Furthermore, as this would be a UK-wide decision, it is important to note that the devolved Administrations have taken a similar view to England and have not submitted an expression of interest for this year's round.
	It is also important to note that any EU funding will be time limited. We want to ensure that any proposal to the EU to extend or complement our school fruit and vegetable scheme is sustainable in the long term and fully integrated into the Government's policies to continue to support increased fruit and vegetable consumption and the promotion of healthy eating.
	The school fruit and vegetables scheme is one of a number of measures the Government take to improve the nation's health. I appreciate the arguments in favour of extending the scheme—my hon. Friend expressed them effectively and clearly—but I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates that it is not possible for me to make a commitment to any extended programme, whether that involves match funding with the EU scheme or a stand-alone scheme, at this time. As I stated in answer to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend last month, we have "no plans to extend" the scheme. I realise that that is not be the response that my hon. Friend was hoping for, but I hope that I have reassured him that his speech has been well received, well made and well heard.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.